Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/07/12 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 12, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 21, 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. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-K: Proposal to rezone certain territory generally bounded by Naples Street, Palomar Street, Third Avenue and Tobias Drive, (Hilltop), from its City-adopted "County-Zoning" classifications to the "City-Zoning" classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista - City Initiated 2. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-4M, Palomar Trolley Center 3. Consideration of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-89-4M, Palomar Trolley Center 4. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program for Palomar Trolley Center EIR-89-4M 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcrest Development (Continued) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-37: Request to expand Community Hospital at 751 Medical Center Court - Community Hospital of Chula Vista AGENDA -2- July 12, 1989 7. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-89-G: Consideration to rezone 4.99 acres at the intersection of 'E' Street and Bonita Road from R-1-7 to R-1-5P - Stafford Gardner (b) ?CS-89-11: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, at the interesection of 'E' Street and Bonita Road (c) P-89-2: Consideration of precise plan for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11 8. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-88-39M: Consideration of appeal from conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee to modify the approved finish materials at 1181 Broadway - Jerry Olsher OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to Special Business Meeting of July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-K City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory generally bounded by Naples Street on the north, Third Avenue on the west, Palomar Street on the south, and Hilltop on the east. There are two exceptions to that boundary: south of Palomar between First and Tobias; several parcels east of Hilltop and south of Oxford. The proposal is to rezone the territory from its City-adopted (County zoning) classifications to the City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed specific rezon~ngs, and their precise territorial limits are depicted on the attached Exhibit "A". The proposed rezoning is confined to a portion of the Castle Park "B" Subcommunity of Montgomery and is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988, under Resolution No. 13413, and on September 13, 1988, under Resolution No. l~/SU. A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves a reclassification of a portion of the Castle Park "B" Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by Naples Street on the north, Third Avenue on the west, Palomar on the south, and Hilltop on the east. Specifically, this request will convert the existing County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: C36 to C-C-P RVl5 to R-1-5-P RVl5 to R-2-P RV15 to R-l-7 RU29 to R-3 RU29 to R-2-P RS7 to R-l-7 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-4M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, lg89 Page 2 3. On June 7, 1989 the Montgomery Planning Committee held a public hearing and recommended that the properties be reclassified as designated on Exhibit "A". 4. At the meeting of June 7th, the Montgomery Planning Committee discussed the issue of nonconforming uses. North of Oxford along Tobias, Dixon and First Avenues there are several existing duplexes that would become nonconforming if zoned R-1-5-P. This is because the lot area is less than lO,O00 square feet (even when measured to the centerline of the street). The R-1-5-P zone would permit one unit/5000 square feet or two units on a 10,000 square foot lot. If a lot has less than 10,000 square feet and a duplex exists on said lot, that duplex would be a legal nonconforming use. The Committee was concerned about creating nonconforming uses in this area. It was stated that the "P" modifying district might be able to embody policy to all ow nonconforming residential uses wi thin this district. If this was not so, the Committee requested to be apprised of any other provisions existing in the Municipal Code that would allow a nonconforming use, if damaged beyond 60%, to be reconstructed. Between the Montgomery Planning Committee hearing and this Planning Commission hearing, staff has determined that the "P" Modifying District cannot amend the regulations dealing with non-conforming uses. However, Section 19.64.160 of the Municipal Code provides the necessary mechanism for review: "Requirements prohibiting restoration or reconstruction or requiring discontinuance of nonconforming uses may be modified by the Planning Commission for dwellings located in any R zone .... " This provision would allow the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a nonconforming use could be reconstructed should major damage occur exceeding 60%. 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 readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A." City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 3 C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin0 and land use. North Predominantly R-1 Single family and vacant South Predominantly R-1 Single family R-3 {west of Second Avenue) Commercial along Third Avenue C-C {south of Palomar and multiple family west of and east of Third Avenue) Second Avenue and south of Palomar East R-1 Single family West C-C Commercial along Third Avenue Existing site characteristics. The project area is almost entirely improved with a mixture of single and two-family residential, multiple family residential, and commercial uses along Third Avenue. Out of the total number of residential units, there are 927 units within this subarea, 516 of which are single family detached units. The remaining mix includes 204 two-family units, 21 triplexes, and 197 multiple family units. In addition to these uses, there is a church and a daycare facility within the study area. Lot sizes range from under 5,000 sq. ft. to over 27,000 sq. ft. in size. The average lot size for a single family detached dwelling is approximately 8700 sq. ft. General plan. This Castle Park "B" Subcommunity is designated on the Montgomery Specific Plan as follows: 1. Mercantile and Office Commercial along Third Avenue. 2. High Density Residential {18-27 du/acre) on the east side of the Third Avenue commercial strip extending easterly on the north side of Kennedy Street. Additional High Density Residential is located on the north side of Palomar Street east of Second Avenue. 3. Special study area for the area on either side of Del Mar Avenue between Naples and Oxford. In addition, 5 lots fronting on Oxford Street just south of Del Mar Avenue are also designated as a Special Study Area. 4. Low/Medium Density Residential {3-6 du/acre) on most of the remainder of the project area. This by far is the predominant land use designation and incorporates most of the single family detached dwellings and two-family units. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 4 5. There are two specific properties, a church site located east of Tobias Drive and a daycare facility north of Kennedy, which is designated as "Other" on the Montgomery Specific Plan. This classification acknowledges that the use is neither Commercial nor Residential and seeks to identify that use as a quasi/public facility which serves the needs of this community. Based on these land use designations, staff is recommending zone reclassifications consistent with the above described land use designations. More specifically, that involves: 1. The areas designated High Density Residential would be classified from RU29 to R-3. 2. The areas designated Mercantile and Office Commercial along Third Avenue would be designated from C36 to C-C-P. 3. The areas designated "Other" would receive a zone classification consistent with the surrounding land use designation and zoning. In reference to the church site east of Tobias, staff proposes a zone reclassification from the RV15 to the R-2-P zone. In reference to the daycare facility on Kennedy, staff recommends a zone reclassification from the RU29 to the R-3 zone. 4. For those areas designated Low/Medium Density Residential, we are recommending specific zone reclassifications depending on the precise area (please refer to Exhibit "A"). For the area north of Oxford, staff recommends a zone reclassification from the RVl5 to the R-1-5-P zone. This would preserve the predominant single-family quality of the area but permit the construction of an additional unit on those lots which can achieve a density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 sq. ft. To assist in the transition from the County zoning to the City zoning classifications, we are recommending the (P) Modifying District in that area to permit the measurement of the lot area from the center-line of the dedicated street adjacent to the property. The (P) Modifying District will al so require a site plan and architectural approval so that the actual construction of the units can be done in a sensitive manner. On the south side of Oxford, staff is recommending implementation of two City zone classifications, the R-2-P and the R-l-7 zones. Staff is recommending the R-2-P zone in those areas which are predominantly developed with a mixture of single family and duplex residences. This would permit the transition of the remaining area to the two-family development without adversely impacting those areas that are predominantly developed with single family residences. In those areas along Leoma Lane, Dixon Way, the area east of Hilltop and south of Oxford, and the area south of Palomar staff is recommending the R-l-7 zone. This would prevent two-family development in these predominantly single family neighborhoods. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 5 D. ANALYSIS There are several factors which support the rezonings described above. 1. Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone reclassifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. Implementation of a zoning pattern in this subcommunity goes on to preserve existing single family neighborhoods as well as better defining the location of commercial and higher density residential development. Furthermore, these rezonings use the Precise Plan Modifying District on the commercial parcels and parcels which will convert from single family to duplex development. 2. In the case of the area north of Oxford where staff is recommending a change from the RVl5 to the R-1-5-P zone, this area is predominantly single family but has approximately 42 lots developed with duplex units. There is no one concentration of those duplex units within this study area. In addition, the depth of the lots averages over 180 feet, which would lend itself well to an additional unit constructed to the rear of the present single family dwellings. 3. For the area south of Oxford which is recommended for change from the RV15 to the R-2-P zone, this area is presently developed with a mixture of duplexes and single family dwellings. There are major concentrations of duplex developments within this portion of the study area. Staff believes that because of the lot size and present mixture of development, the R-2-P zone would be the appropriate transition from the present County RVl5 zone. This would permit the remainder of the area to develop in an orderly fashion with duplex development consistent with the existing land use pattern. 4. For the area proposed for change from RVl5 to R-l-7 along Leoma Lane, Dixon Way, and south of Oxford and east of Hill top Drive, these areas are predominantly developed with stable, single family neighborhoods and staff believes that these areas should be preserved in their single family character. 5. For the area south of Palomar which is presently classified as the RS7 zone, this area is presently developed in single family homes and should be reclassified to the R-l-? zone to preserve the existing single family character. Likewise for the area zoned RU29 which is proposed for reclassification to the R-3 zone, these lots are predominantly developed with multiple family units at that density. 6. For the areas on the north and south side of Kennedy west of Second Avenue which are being reclassified from the RU29 to the R-2-P zone, these areas are presently developed with either single family homes or duplexes. They are adjacent to multiple family residential zoning on the west and single/two-family development on the east. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 6 Reclassification to the R-2-P zone would permit a transition from the multiple family zoning while providing these properties with development potential similar to the predominant development type in the area. The reclassification would also prohibit the expansion of the multiple family uses further to the east. 7. Finally, for the area along Third Avenue proposed for reclassification from the C36 to the C-C-P zone, this area is developed commercially. The parcels generally front on Third Avenue and the C-C zone is consistently applied in other commercial areas along this thoroughfare. WPC 6309P EXCERPT FROM JUNE 7, 1989 MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 4. PUBLIC HEARING - PCZ-89-K: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, generally bounded by Naples Street, Palomar Street, Third Avenue and Tobias Drive /Nilltop), from its City-adopted "County-Zoning" classifications to the "City-Zoning" classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed specific rezonings, and their precise territorial limits are depicted on attached Exhibit A. Montgomery Plannin~ Committee -2- June 7, 1989 The proposed rezonings are confined to the "Castle Park B" subcommunity of Montgomery, and are governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988, under Resolution No. 13413, and on September 13, 1988, under Resolution No. 13780. Short Form of Title of Proposal: "Castle Park B" Rezonin~s." PRESENTATION: Background: Mr. Lettieri, Zoning Implementation Consultant, presented a synopsis of the program. The proposed rezonings and reclassifications are confined to Castle Park "B" subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by Naples Street on the north, Third Avenue on the west, Palomar on the south, and Hilltop on the east. The project area is almost entirely improved with a mixture of single and two-family residential, multiple family residential, and commercial uses along Third Avenue. Out of the total number of residential units, there are 927 units within this subarea, 516 of which are single family detached units. The remaining mix includes 204 two-family units, 21 triplexes, and 197 multiple family units. In addition to these uses, there is a church and a daycare facility within the study area. Lot sizes range from under 5,000 sq. ft. to over 27,000 sq. ft. in size. The average lot size for a single family detached dwelling is approximately 8700 sq. ft. Based on these land use designations, staff is recommending zone reclassifications consistent with the above described land use. ~qore specifically, that involves: 1. The areas designated High Density Residential would be classified from RU29 to R-3. 2. The areas designated Mercantile and Office Commercial along Third Avenue would be designated from C36 to C-C-P. 3. The areas designated "Other" would receive a zone classification consistent with the surrounding land use designation and zoning. In reference to the church site east of Tobias, staff proposes a zone reclassification from the RVl5 to the R-2-P zone. In reference to the daycare facility on Kennedy, staff recommends a zone reclassification from the RU29 to the R-3 zone. 4. For those areas designated Low/Medium Density Residential, we are recommending specific zone reclassifications depending on the precise area (please refer to Exhibit "A"). For the area north of Oxford, staff recommends a zone reclassification from the RV15 to the R-1-5-P zone. This would preserve the predominant single-family quality of the area but permit the construction of an additional unit on those lots which can achieve a density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 sq. Montgomery Plannin~ Committee -3- June 7, 1989 ft. To assist in the transition from the County zoning to the City zoning classifications, we are recommending the (P) Modifying District in that area to permit the measurement of the lot area from the center-line of the dedicated street adjacent to the property. The (P) Modifying District will al so require a site plan and architectural approval so that the actual construction of the units can be done in a sensitive manner. On the south side of Oxford, staff is recommending implementation of two City zone classifications, the R-2-P and the R-l-7 zones. Staff is recommending the R-2-P zone in those areas which are predominantly developed with a mixture of single family and duplex residences. This would permit the transition of the remaining area to the two-family development without adversely impacting those areas that are predominantly developed with single family residences. In those areas along Leoma Lane, Dixon Way, the area east of Hilltop and south of Oxford, and the area south of Palomar staff is recommending the R-l-7 zone. This would prevent two-family development in these predominantly single family neighborhoods. Specifically, this request will convert the existing "City-adopted" County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: C36 to C-C-P RU29 to R-3 RV15 to R-1-5-P RU29 to R-2-P RVl5 to R-2-P RS7 to R-l-7 RVl5 to R-l-7 IPlease see Exhibit "A") In summary, staff's recommendations are: 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 readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend enaction of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit A. Committee Member Berlan~a: The special study area at Del Mar, between Oxford Street to the north and Naples Street to the south, isn't this a residential community? Staff: Mr. Chairman, yes it is. I had stated earlier that I would yield the floor to Mr. Pass, Principal Planner in order that he may further clarify the special study area in question. Mr. Pass. Principal Planner Pass: Mr. Chairman, this is a residential area; it is zoned RVlS. The Montgomery Specific Plan puts it in a special study area, and the text of the Specific Plan refers to the special study area, noting Montgomery Planning Committee -4- June 7, 1989 that it is a potential expansion of the Mercantile/Commercial Third Avenue district into a well defined commercial precinct, in the event this proves to be appropriate, through study. What is sought here certainly is not the need to expand the commercial in Montgomery. The community has at this time plenty of commercial land uses. But, what it does not have is a well formed commercial area, with sufficient depth to attract the best uses. This matter will be studied to determine if it should stay residential or maybe go into some form of commercial, and that's why it is in a special study area. Chairman Castro: Is there a timeframe for this special study? Principal Planner Pass: Mr. Chairman, we do not have a time schedule as of right now. However, we are leaving the area in question in the RVlS; property owners can come in any time and apply for residential density in accordance with the RV15. Chairman Castro: At this time I will open the public hearing. Mr. Pocklington to speak in opposition, please state your name and address for the record. Tom Pocklington, 1160/1162 Dixon Drive, Chula Vista 92010. My property is a duplex as pointed out by Mr. Lettieri. It is located on Dixon Drive and does not meet the criteria as outlined by staff, for the one unit per 5000 sq. ft. It's about lO00 sq. ft. short. Right now the property is zoned RVl5 which makes this property a legal use. If it is changed to R-1-5-P, I and other property owners with 8700+ sq. ft. properties will become non- conforming. Is this correct? There-fore, I am submitting my complaint (per your public hearing notice). I presently have a legal piece of property, which now becomes a non-conforming use, if we go to the proposed R-1-5-P. I basically object to the zone and being made a non-conforming use. Therefore, if I, the property owner sold this property to someone else, under the R-1-5-P, it could affect the new buyer's investment, as well as the inability to sell my property as a conforming use. This is my main objection. Chairman Castro: I would also express the same concern regarding the non-conforming uses that would be created by the R-1-5-P and the inability of property owners to restore their use to existing levels, and ask staff to clarify this issue. Principal Planner Pass: Mr. Chairman, number one, a legal non-conforming use unless destroyed can stay indefinitely. In the event that more than 60% is destroyed, then a conditional use permit would have to be procured. This being in the "P" modifying district, the Committee could recommend that the "P" modifying district embody policy that would allow non-conforming residential uses within this district to be determined to be conforming and then they would not be under the purview of the non-conforming ordinance and could rebuild. Montgomery Plannin~ Committee -5- June 7, 1989 Chairman Castro: Would this require us to go back to the other areas and change it to a "P" modifier? Principal Planner Pass: No, the "P" is set district by district, not in its entirety. Chairman Castro: Then this would be a modification of this district. Staff: That's correct. Principal Planner Pass: If the Committee feels this is supportable, recommend it. We would not recommend it, however, in any of the other areas proposed for rezoning. Chairman Castro: On the RV15 to R-l-7 at Oxford on the southeast side of Hilltop, haven't these properties recently developed as duplexes? Staff: Mr. Chairman, if that area indeed is duplexes, we would have no objection to changing it to R-2-P. Staff: On the provisions of the "P" modifier, we will check with the regulatory division as well as the City Attorney's office, if the Committee so desires. Chairman Castro: How can we vote on this? Staff: You could recommend that it be approved in accordance with the attowneys decision or if it's feasible within the framework of the Municipal Code. Chairman Castro: Any further discussion? MSUC (Palmer/McFarlin) 7-0 to accept a motion to readopt the Negative Declaration 88-4M as stated in the staff report. MSUC (Creveling/Berlanga) 6-0 to accept a motion to retain the RV15 to R-l-7 on those lots which are east of Hilltop and face Oxford Street on the south side; and to include the lot, which is south of the corner lot on the southeast corner of Oxford and Hilltop; to amend staff's proposal on those lots which are east of Hilltop and south of the lots facing Oxford Street, from RV15 to R-2-P (4 lots). Please see Exhibit "A", and to accept staff's recommendation on the remainder of the report. To apprise the Montgomery Planning Committee whether any provisions exist in the Municipal Code, that would allow a non-conforming structure, if damaged beyond 60% could be reconstructed. Should the provisions of the "P" modifier be found, not to be applicable. JUN 6 1989 3210 Kenne]worth Lane Bonita, CA 92002 28, May 1989 Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 TO: City Planning Commisslon of Chula Vista and the Montgomery Planning Committee This letter is In response to the City of Chula Vista zoning and reclassification proposed In "Castle Park B.". As the owner of a duplex, ]ocated at 1160 & 1162 Dixon Drive, my property would be nonconforming with the new Chula Vista zoning regulation. There are seven other properties located on this same two block street that are duplex propertles, also. I am opposed to any city zoning that would put my property in a position other than being conforming, as It exists now unGer the current county zoning codes. I would like to make my concerns known to the members of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista. I am requesting to be heard on this subject at the ? June and 12 July meeting. Sincerely, Tom Pockl ln~'on City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 2. Consideration of Final EIR-89-4M - Palomar Trolley Center A. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, on June 14, 1989, conducted a public hearing for the draft environmental impact report for Palomar Trolley Center, a 12.23 acre proposed community shopping center located south of Palomar Street and east of the Palomar Street Trolley Station in the Montgomery Specific Plan area of the City of Chula Vista. At the close of the public review, comments had been received from two state agencies as well from the City Engineers and observations made by the Commission during the public hearing. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and furthermore, that the Planning Commission will consider the EIR as they reach a decision on the proposed project. C. DISCUSSION Within the final EIR, comments received and responses to the same are included in the beginning of the report. Any changes made to the text in response to the comments are indicated by strikeout (/////) and underline ). The agencies commenting on the draft report have comments that are summarized here including: The California Department of Transportation and the State Public Utilities Commission. Department of Transportation The Department of Transportation is concerned about potential impacts to the Interstate Route 5 interchange at Palomar Street. Representatives of this department have stated that mitigations for those impacts need to be worked out with the City of Chula Vista. This will occur as part of an ongoing process. Public Utilities Commission The Public Utilities Commission notes that if "at grade" crossings of rail-tracks are altered, authorization of the California Public Utilities Commission is needed. There are no immediate plans for such altering. Representatives of the City Engineering Department had extensive comments and recommended changes in the Draft EIR to assure that the project had the proper street improvements. The Engineering Department is comfortable that the final EIR requires the necessary improvements prior to project approval. WPC 6447P City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 3. Consideration of CEQA Findings EIR-89-4M, Palomar Trolley Center Attached are copies of CEQA Findings as prepared by A. D. Hinshaw and Associates. PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER CHULA VISTA EIR-89-4M SCH# 89032915 DRAFT C~DIDATE CEQA FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SECTION 1509 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE July 12, 1989 I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures of project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act) The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Palomar Trolley Center project in the City of Chula Vista (EIR- 89-4M, SCH# 89032915). The discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Zone Change and future approvals required to implement the project including Street Vacations, Design Review, Grading Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, and Site Plan and Architecture Review. The Palomar Trolley Center preliminary plan proposes a community shopping center incorporating a total of 128,387 gross square-feet of building space to be constructed on the 12.23 acre site. The project is proposed to be developed as one phase. The center is planned to include a major supermarket, retail shops and pads for four drive-through restaurants and a bank or other financial institution. A parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area will result in 642 parking spaces. The following findings are made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. II. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS 1) The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the proposed Palomar Trolley Center project and associated discretionary actions, and having reviewed and considered the information in the public record, find that changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts thereof, as identified in the Final EIR. These measures are outlined in summary form below. 2) The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, having each reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the proposed Palomar Trolley Center project and associated discretionary actions, and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, find that there are no changes or alterations to the project that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project that are the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) The City Council and Planning Commission, having each reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the proposed Palomar Trolley Center project and the associated discretionary approvals, and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, find that there are no specific economic, social, or other considerations which make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Changes incorporated into the project which will mitigate or avoid the following significant environmental effects: TP. ANSPORTATION/ACCESS Impact The proposed Palomar Trolley Center will add approximately 6,250 newly generated average daily trips (ADT) to the surrounding street system, with 626 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The distribution of trips is estimated to split 60 and 40 percent east and west along Palomar Street, respectively. Street segments in the project vicinity currently operate at acceptable levels of service. When the proposed project's traffic is added to that of recently approved projects, Palomar Street is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) E under the existing Circulation Element classification. 2 Broadway north of Palomar Street will deteriorate to LOS E under existing plus project plus approved project conditions. Industrial Boulevard between Palomar Street and Main Street will deteriorate to LOS D. All other street segments are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service with development of the project and approved projects. The intersection of Palomar Street/Broadway will deteriorate from LOS B to LOS D following the construction of the project. The intersection of Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard currently operates at LOS F and would continue at this level after construction of the Palomar Trolley Center. Mitigation To mitigate the adverse impacts to the local street network, the following measures have been incorporated into the project. 1. Improve Palomar Street to the Major Street Classification with a raised median along the frontage of the Palomar Center. 2. Improve the Industrial Boulevard approaches to the Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection to provide one left-turn, one through lane, and one right- turn lane with full signal phasing. 3. Provide an internal connection between the proposed project and the Trolley Station. 4. Provide dual left-turn lanes on the westbound approach of the Palomar Street/Project Entry intersection. 5. Provide dual left-turn lanes on the eastbound approach of the Palomar Street/Broadway intersection. 6. Conduct a detailed site analyses for the individual restaurants at the time of conditional use permit application. Findings These measures will mitigate all of the adverse impacts to a less than significant level. The City's Adopted Growth Management Threshold for traffic will be met if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. 3 MAINTENANCE OF ADOPTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT THRESHOLD STANDARDS Impact Because the site is located in a substantially developed area where public services and facilities are already provided, the development of the site is not expected to result in any impacts to the maintenance of the City's Adopted Growth Management Threshold Standards for Fire/Emergency Medical Service, Parks and Recreation, Sewer, and Water. However, there will be significant cumulative impacts to the maintenance of Police Service Threshold Standards as a result of implementing the proposed development and other projects which have been recently approved. Additionally, it has not yet been determined whether the development of the project would affect the maintenance of Growth Management Threshold Standards for drainage. Preliminary hydrology calculations indicate that the development of the proposed project will result in an increase of surface runoff of 13 cfs for Q10 flows and 17 cfs for QS0 flows at the sump located south of the project. Depending on the design of the sump, and whether or not surrounding properties are protected from the ponding QS0 flows, the development of the proposed project may have an effect upon the City's threshold standards for drainage. Mitigation TO mitigate the cumulative impacts to the maintenance of Growth Management Threshold Standards for police services, it is recommended that the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) review the current level of service of the Police Department and, if warranted, that the City Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative maps or other discretionary approvals applications during which time the City shall prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. The degree to which they are mitigated will be determined by the measures implemented by the City. It is recommended that a thorough hydrology study be conducted in order to better determine the downstream effects of the proposed project and, accordingly, it's effect upon the City's threshold standards for drainage. It should be noted that all the assumptions used in the preliminary hydrology calculations are based upon the most current drainage study on file with the City, which was prepared more than 20 years ago. Records were found to be incomplete and, at best, outdated. III. NON-SIGNIFIC~NT IMPACTS In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR-89-4M the project would not result in any significant impact to the following and therefore have not been discussed any further in these findings: 1. Community Social Factors. 2. The Maintenance of the City's Adopted Growth Management Threshold Standards for: Fire/Emergency Medical Services; Parks and Recreation; Sewer; and Water. IV. THE RECORD For the purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of the Planning Commission and City Council relating to these actions include: 1. City of Chula Vista, Montgomery Specific Plan, 9/13/88 2. County of San Diego, Zonin9 Ordinance, 10/18/78, as amended 3. City of Chula Vista, Zonin9 Ordinance, 4. Willdan Associates, Traffic Analysis For Palomar Trolley Center, 10/14/88 5. JHK & Associates, Review of Traffic Analysis, 1/5/89 6. City of Chula Vista, Growth Management Threshold Standards, 11/17/87 7. City of Chula Vista, General Plan Digest 8. City of Chula Vista, Initial Study For Palomar Trolley Center (IS-88-63M), 9. City of Chula Vista, General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element, 2/74 10. Johnson, Vaughn, Preliminary Drainage Study For Palomar Trolley Station, 11. Sweetwater Authority, Water Service Availability Letter, 1/10/89 12. CIC Research, Inc., Economic Analysis For Palomar Trolley Center, 1/89 Also included as part of the Planning Commission and City Council record are: 1. Final EIR For The Palomar Trolley Center EIR-89-4M (SCH #89032915), A.D. Hinshaw Associates, July 1989. 2. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on EIR- 89-4M and the Palomar Trolley Center Project. 3. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and/or City Council such as: a. The City of Chula Vista General Plan, including all maps and elements thereof; b. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista as most recently amended; c. The Municipal Code of the City of Chula Vista; and d. All other formally adopted policies and ordinances. File:~Mark~Eir~Findings.210 6 City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 4. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EIR-89-4M Palomar Trolley Center Attached are copies of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for EIR-89-4M, Palomar Trolley Center. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The following monitoring program is designed to insure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and insure mitigation measures are implemented. The following identifies how the City of Chula Vista will monitor mitigation measures and report the findings of such monitoring. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The following identifies a step-by-step process which the City of Chula Vista will utilize to monitor and report on the implementation of mitigation measures. 1. All mitigation measures shall become conditions of a project approval identifying when the condition Imitigation) shall be implemented, i.e., prior to permit issuance, prior to recordation, during project construction, before occupancy, or after occupancy. 2. Project approvals shall be by resolution or Notice of Decision (NOD) identifying all conditions including a special section identifying all mitigation measures as conditions. Said resolution shall be routed to all City departments and affected agencies. 3. Upon application for implementation permits (grading, building, encroachment, utility connections, and the like), the resolution of approval or NOD with the mitigation shall be attached to the construction plans for both in-house (inspector) use and on-site (contractor) plans. 4. Should project implementation permits require monitoring during construction, the mitigation shall be identified on the construction plans for the inspector and contractor. 5. Prior to issuance of any implementation permits, the resolution of approval shall be reviewed to determine if any conditions Imitigation) require implementation. This review shall be by the Planning Department. Staff will insure that such conditions have been complied with prior to the issuance of the permits. 6. Prior to staff signing off on City forms reporting that the permit is completed, the conditions (mitigation) shall be reviewed by staff to insure compliance. 7. Prior to project occupancy or completion being approved by the City all City departments shall sign off on the occupancy card. Each department shall insure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. The Planning Department shall insure that the mitigation measures have been met, including those measures that may require other agency input and comment/acceptance prior to signing off on the occupancy card. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after planning completion shall be the responsibility of the Planning Department. The department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds Ior other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. Ci~v related projects that have conditions reflecting mitigation measures will not have to post any deposits. Compliance of the mitigation measures shall be insured by the Planning Department and other agencies, if applicable. In those instances requiring long term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's mitigation monitoring program and shall be approved by the Planning Department Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All monitoring and reporting documentation shall be maintained in the primary project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project, and a copy of the monitoring and reporting documentation shall be transmitted to the agency requiring the mitigation. 10. Although various City departments will be involved with insuring compliance with mitigation measures, the Planning Department will review all mitigation measures prior to granting occupancy to double check compliance. WPC 6444P -2- ERRATA SHEET PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER Final Focused EIR-89-4M Page 31. 3.1.3 8. The I-5 Palomar Street Interchange shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and CalTrans prior to the occupancy of any structure within the project site. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-~, located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcrest Development (continued) A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, in order to subdivide 19.2 acres into 54 single-family lots and one open space lot. The property is located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive in the P-C zone. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-63 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-89-63. 3. This item was continued at the request of the applicant from the meeting of June 28, 1989, in order to resolve certain issues with an adjoining property owner. 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-89-63. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum of 33% or 18 lots within the project may provide sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. and 5 ft. for 3-car garages provided the lots are developed in compliance with the other provisions of Resolution No. 13426. This allowance assumes all lots will be developed with 3-car garages, and that garage conversions shall be prohibited on all lots as reflected in the CC&R's. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 2 b. Lot "A" shall be included within an open space maintenance district, and subject to a landscape enhancement program to be reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Architect. c. A minimum 10 ft. level width of landscaping shall be provided at the rear of Lots 46, 47, and 48; landscaping for these areas and the slopes at the rear of lots 49 thru 54 (and the side of Lot 54) shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the owners of the lots as reflected in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall also require a consistent design and high level of maintenance for these areas. All other lots within the project shall be included as parties to the enforcement of these provisions as reflected in their own CC&R's. Gates shall be installed at the rear of Lots 46 thru 54 to provide for maintenance access. d. The view fencing shall be used where the open space lot adjoins Southview Circle; all view fence within the open space maintenance district shall be provided with a slump stone base approximately 36" high. The owners of Lots 13-22 shall si~n a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the view fence is on City property and that they may not modify or supplement the fence or encroach onto City property. e. The decorative fence shall be used on the exterior sideyards of Lots 2 & 3 adjacent to the Street between Lots 2 and 3. f. The retaining wall illustration and notation shall include a maximum height limit of 7.5 ft. for retaining walls. The restrictions on retaining walls shall be included within the CC&R's. g. The CC&R'S shall contain private fence/wall standards for slopes and top of slopes, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. h. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements have been reached with both school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project prior to approval of the final map. i. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water Pistrict 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. j. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. k. Fire hydrants shall be required at maximum 500 ft. spacing subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 3 1. The developer shall be responsible for providing adequate right-of-way to construct Santa Cruz Court from Apache Drive to the existing improvements in Santa Cruz Court as shown on the Tentative Map. Said right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. m. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements for all streets as shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary, and for the construction of necessary off-site improvements to construct Santa Cruz Court as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to: asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, and fire hydrants. The developer shall have the existing pavement in Santa Cruz Court evaluated and replaced if said evaluation determines that the structural integrity does not meet City standards. Santa Cruz Court shall conform to City standards for a residential collector street, and Southview Court and Southview Circle shall conform to City standards for residential streets. Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall deposit with the City sufficient money to guarantee the construction of full street improvements for the future street between lot 2 and 3. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, and fire hydrants. Said street shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Subdivision approval, for residential streets. n. 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. o. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets, except Telegraph Canyon Road, within the subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. p. Sewers serving 10 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. q. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. r. The cul-de-sac and the knuckle shall be designed and built in accordance with City Standards. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 4 s. 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 (No. 1797 as amended) The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. t. All off-site grading within the private property shall require a Letter of Permission from the property owners allowing the work to be done u. The sewer system shall be extended to the northerly property line at a grade and location sufficient to serve the property northerly of the subdivision. v. Paved access shall be provided to all sewer manholes. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. The developer shall obtain and grant to the City easements for storm drains prior to Final Map approval. w. 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 x. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI. y. The design of all improvements shall conform to City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Standard Drawings and City standards in effect at the time of Tentative Map approval z. All vertical curves and intersection corner sight distance requirements shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. aa. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. bb. Lots 46 through 54 shall relinquish access rights to Southview Circle. cc. No lot shall be allowed to have frontage on public streets of less than 35 feet unless said reduced frontage is approved by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 5 dd. No driveways shall be located within 8 feet of any curb return unless approved by the City Engineer. ee. The maximum grade at any intersection of two streets shall be 6% within the intersection and for at least 50 feet past the nearest curb lines of the intersecting street. This requirement also applies to the intersection of Santa Cruz Court and the future street as shown on the Tentative Map. ff. The street name for Santa Cruz Court is subject to change. gg. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. hh. Unless off-site slope rights are obtained, an easement shall be granted to the City between the toe-of-slope and property line on Lots 1-5 and 7-13 which will allow the City or its authorized representative to enter the property for the purpose of grading and related earthowrk and/or the installation of retaining walls at the time the adjoining property develops. The developer as a condition of approval for developing the adjoining property, shall be required to compensate the City for any and all such expenses associated with this work, including any necessa[v re-landscaping or refencing on the lots. The following are map revisions submitted by the Engineering Department: a. Show the existing street grades of Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court. b. For existing utilities Ion-site and off-site) show the following information: -- Sewers: Location, type, size of sewer and manhole invert and rim elevations. -- Water: Location, type and size. -- Electricity, Telephone and Cable TV: Location, type and size. -- Gas: Location, type and size. c. Show size and type of proposed sewer main. Show sewer manhole invert and rim elevations. Number all manholes. d. Easements shall not straddle lot lines (see Lots 17 and 18). e. Add Engineer's stamp and expiration date to the Tentative Map. f. Revise the tract number to read Chula Vista Tract 89-8. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 6 C. DISCUSSION Existin~ site characteristics The 19.2-acre property has an irregular shape, and topography which slopes down from north to south -- the steepest slopes being on the southerly portion of the site adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. The area to the west of the property is single family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, with townhomes to the east and vacant acreage and single family dwellings to the south. The property is designated for residential development at 4-6 du/ac within the South College SPA of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. Development proposals The proposal calls for 54 single family lots on 13.6 acres, plus a 5.6 acre open space lot, which results in a gross density of 2.8 du/ac and a net density of 4.0 du/ac. Santa Cruz Court would be extended from Buena Vista Way through to Apache Drive -- providing two access points for the project. Lots would also be served by a loop street ISouthview Circle) and cul-de-sac (Southview Court), and an unnamed street will be stubbed-out to serve future development of the vacant acreage directly to the south and east of the proposal site. The lots will step-down the site from north to south, with larger slopes between banks of lots and smaller slopes between individual pads. All of the lots meet the requirements for standard R-1 development. The average lot size is 8,900 sq. ft., with a minimum of 5,900 sq. ft. and a maximum of 18,000 sq. ft. There are two lots between 5-6,000 sq. ft. and nine lots between 6-7,000 sq. ft., whereas the R-1 standards would allow up to 20%, or 11 lots, to be between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. and an additional 10%, or 5 lots, to be between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. The SPA Plan shows all of the dwellings with 3-car garages. The dwellings will meet all of the basic bulk and setback standards applicable to R-1 development, with the exception of a percentage of the sideyard setbacks. In 1988, the Council adopted a policy for P-C zoned developments which allows 20% of the lots within a project to reduce sideyards from 3' and 10' to 5' and 5' for dwellings with a 3-car garage. Woodcrest is requesting an exception to the policy to increase the allowance from 20% to 33%, or from ll to 18 lots. The policy was adopted on the basis that the primary purpose of 3'/10' sideyards is to provide for vehicle access to the rearyard, and that a 3-car garage can offset this need to a significant degree by providing an additional enclosed parking space. The additional space will not accommodate larger RV's, but it can reduce the clutter of on-street and driveway parking by cars, and smaller ~V's and boats. The policy also contains provisions which require the reduced sideyards to be level and City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Pa~e 7 that a minimum of 10 ft. be maintained between dwellings. No garage conversions are permitted, and specific locations are subject to staff review. Earlier discussions of the issue leading to the policy centered around projects which would provide a mix of two and three-car garage plans, and which would only use 3-car garages if sideyards were reduced. Woodcrest, however, proposes all 3-car garages but with reduced setbacks on only 33% of the lots -- resulting in what should be a much less cluttered street scene than the typical 3'/10' two-car garage project. The Commission supported a similar request at Woodcrest Terra Nova subject to the other provisions of the policy with the further restriction that garage conversions shall be prohibited on all lots. The open space lot would be within an open space maintenance district and subject to a landscape enhancement program. The developer will also install landscaping on the interior slopes. The maintenance of the rear of the lots which back-on to the loop street will be the responsibility of the nine involved property owners under the CC&R'S. We are further recommending that a minimum 10 ft. level width of landscaping be established at the rear of Lots 46, 47, and 48. The fencing plan includes decorative fencing where rear yards abut the street, and at sideyards, and view fencing at the rear of lots along the southerly boundary. The decorative fence should also be used on the exterior yards of Lots 2 and 3 and the view fencing should be used where the open space lot adjoins Southview Circle. A notation and illustration requires split walls for any retaining walls which exceed 6 ft. high for more than 20 ft. We further recommend a maximum height of 7.5 ft. An additional condition would require the CC&R's to contain private fence standards in order to provide continuity at prominent slope and top-of-slope locations. Adjoinin~ vacant acreage With the approval of Woodcrest Southwestern, the only remaining developable acreage within the South College SPA would be the 5+ acre property adjoining the south and east boundaries of the project--site. This property carries the same 4-6 du/ac designation as the proposal site, and we believe its physical relationship to and access through the Woodcrest project argues strongly for a similar development pattern, which would result in a maximum yield of 10-12 dwelling units. As a result, staff intends to initiate an amendment to the ERdR Specific Plan to change the designation from 4-6 du/ac to 2-4 du/ac. The owner of this adjoining property has withheld permission for any off-site grading. As a result, additional grading and/or retaining walls will be necessary in order to extend the stub street, and it may result in an awkward and undesirable relationship with Lots 1-5 and 7-13 depending on how the property develops. Since the stub street is for the benefit of City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 9 g. Safety - Fire response time is three minutes, or well below the City's threshold standard of seven minutes for 85% of the cases. Fire hydrants will be required at 500 feet spacing. Police response times are within the threshold standard. h. Noise - There are no projected adverse impacts from noise based on the distance of the dwellings from Telegraph Canyon Poad. i. Scenic Highway - Open Space will be dedicated and enhanced adjacent to the Telegraph Canyon Road scenic corridor. j. Bicycle Routes - There are no designated bicycle routes through the project. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened to accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings The project will be incorporated into an established Mello-Roos District in order to provide for adequate school facilities. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 6342P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 8 this property, we believe any extraordinary expense to extend the street or correct the corresponding interface with Lots 1-5 and 7-13 as a result of future development should be borne by this adjoining property. A condition to address these matters has been included in the recommendation. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The project density of 2.8 du/ac is consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan which calls for residential development at between 4-6 du/ac. b. Circulation - The project will be served by public streets which conform with City standards. A stub-street has been provided to serve a future development area. c. Housing - The project will provide housing consistent with the Specific Plan designation and adjoining single family areas to the west. d. Conservation - No cultural resources have been found on the site and the value of biological resources is low. The open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road shall be revegetated with native plant species to mitigate impacts to a coastal sage scrub community below a level of environmental significance. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will result in the dedication and enhancement 5.6 acres of open space adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. Park acquisition and development fees will be collected prior to approval of a final map. f. Seismic Safety - The site is not located on any known active fault trace. A geotechnical investigation indicates that current building code requirements are sufficient to protect dwellings from potential seismic activity. OTAy ' ~' '"- '~'~ ' SPECIFIC PLAN '"~~-~P[ OPOSED  .~ ~ 4~ 504.0 5.7 28r0 E~hi~t DATE: July 7, 1989 I:~CUECT NO.: 88. 358 LOT AREA TABLE FOR ']',:~ ~ CANYON 1 10,914 23 8,275 2 10,900 24 8,080 3 6,426 25 7,315 4 5,916 26 6,710 5 5,916 27 6,710 6 6,313 28 7,452 7 6,660 29 7,583 8 6,900 30 7,334 9 6,900 31 7,300 10 6,900 32 7,200 11 6,900 33 7,360 12 7,130 34 7,360 13 7,200 35 7,200 14 7,301 36 7,360 15 7,297 37 7,360 16 7,804 38 7,114 17 7,754 39 9,140 18 8,194 40 9,110 19 8,479 41 9,833 20 8,589 42 8,592 21 10,269 43 9,479 22 10,895 o7/07/89 PAGE 2, 44 10,399 45 15,120 46 18,031 47 12,849 48 10,030 49 10,931 50 7,790 51 7,940 52 7,430 53 7,665 54 10,048 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Woodcrest/Southwest PROJECT LOCATION: Telegraph Canyon Road/Apache Dr. PROJECT APPLICANT: Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. CASE NO: IS-89-63 DATE: April l?, 1989 A. Project Setting The 19.17-acre parcel is located east of 1-805 on the north side of East H Street in Chula Vista, between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive. Land uses in the vicinity are primarily existing or planned for residential uses. The area to the west of the project site is primarily single family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, condominium townhomes are to the east with open space and single family dwellings to the south. B. Project Description The proposed project includes the construction of 54 single family residences on 19.17 acres of land with a net density of 5.35 dwelling units per acre (2.82 dwelling units per gross acre). All lots exceed the sizes required by the R-1 zone standards. Grading for the project includes approximately 73% of the site, including 40,000 cubic yards of excavation and 54,000 cubic yards of import. The maximum cut and fill is 9 and 35 feet, respectively. An average of 9-10 feet of cut and fill will occur. Offsite improvements include new streets, extension of gas, electric and sewer lines and drainage facilities. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The site has been designated a residential site, under the Planned Community Zoning of the property. The general development plan of the Planned PC Zoning permits 4-6 dwellings per unit. The project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan land use designation for that location. D.Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EM The Fire Station is located one and a half miles from the site with an estimated response time of three minutes. The fire standards require a seven-minute response time for 85% of the cases. The Fire Department has indicated that they will be able to provide protection.~,~A to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. ~ city of chula vista planning department CI1YO[ environmental review section CHUL~ VIS[A -2- As a condition of approval, the building permit will provide on-site fire hydrants to be located at 500 foot spacing. The threshold standards will be met. 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard, and the project will not result in a significant impact to the provision of police protection. 3. Traffic The project would be served by Telegraph Canyon Road, Santa Cruz Court and Apache Drive. The project proposes 54 single family residence, which can be expected to generate 648 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road is 15,170, The projected ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road including the project would be 15,818 when the project is built out. Telegraph Canyon Road is currently maintaining an E level of service which represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Grading was recently initiated for the Telegraph Canyon Road widening project. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its existing two and four lanes to six lanes. The City has estimated that the project should take a minimum of one year to complete. After the project is completed, Telegraph Canyon Road would operate at an A level of service. An A level of service represents a free flow of traffic, not affected by other users in the traffic stream. These dwellings will not be occupied until these improvements are made and therefore, the thresholds will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation Existing neighborhood and community parks near the project are adequate to serve the population increase resulting from the project. The project is served by Independence neighborhood park located at 1245 Calle Santiago, near Southwestern College. The project will also be served by the proposed 28-acre Rancho del Rey Community Park on Paseo Ladera, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 3 miles from the project site. Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit will be required to provide facilities for this project. The project therefore meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. 5. Drainage A portion of the open space area on the project site near Telegraph Canyon Road lies within a 100 and 500 year flood boundary; however, the proposed residential uses will not be subject to any flooding hazards. There are currently no existing drainage facilities to -3- serve the site. The project proposes to construct adequate drainage facilities to convey offsite runoff. An offsite pipe inlet west of the project at the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, is adequate to serve the downstream facilities with the proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Improvement and drainage channel. 6. Sewer Approximately 1,418 pounds of solid and 15,120 gallons of liquid waste will be produced daily. A fifteen inch sewer main is located on Telegraph Canyon Road, flowing westerly. The existing sewer main is adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. The District has prepared a water allocation report which limits the number of dwelling units to 1900 which can be provided service hy the District in a year. The proposed project will be considered for water service in accordance with the number of units that have been allocated water. A will serve letter assuring the provision of water from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The Otay Water District was granted an easement for a 12" pipeline that runs in a east-west direction from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly line of the proposed project. The grading requirements for this project may require that the pipeline be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet Otay Water District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. The Otay Water District has not objected to the pro~ect and the threshold standards have been met. 8. Geology and Soils A preliminary geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site by GEOCON in February 1989. The proposed project site is not located on any known active fault trace. The potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone lies approximately one mile west of the site. According to the geotechnical consultant, the effects of seismic shaking at the site from a major earthquake can be reduced through the adherence by the project proponent to the current building code and recommended lateral force requirements. The site had been determined by the registered geotechnical engineer to be suitable for development with nominal and relatively standard earthwork and site preparation procedures. -4- 9. Noise A noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the Proposed project from traffic associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road which will be widened to six lanes. Assuming a four-lane road with eight percent truck traffic, with an ADT of 15,818 (projected future ADT for Telegraph Canyon Road), the 65 dB(A) noise contour would be 169 feet from the center line of the road. When Telegraph Canyon Road is expanded to a six-lane road, with the same percentage of truck traffic, the noise contour would not be substantially different. The nearest residence is approximately 250 feet from the road. There would, therefore, be no adverse impact to the project from the associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road. 10. Schools Approximately 16 elementary students would be generated by the proposed project. The project is located within the Chula Vista Hills Elementary School attendance area of the Chula Vista City School district. The current enrollment for Chula Vista Hills is 329. It has a capacity of 600 students on a standard school schedule and 900 students on a year-round schedule (Table 1). A new elementary school facility is currently under construction in the Hills Community of EastLake. Other potential elementary school sites are being planned in the area; including Terra Nova, the Rancho del Rey SPA I school and a site located at the intersection of Paseo Ranchero and East J Street. Table 1 CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Temporary School Capacity Enrollment Difference Bonita Vista Junior High 1,524 1,525 Bonita Vista High 1,932 1,740 192 Chula Vista Hills Elementary 600 329 271 900 * Possible in the future with a year-round schedule. Source: City of Chula Vista School District, Carol Henderson Rancho del Rey SPA ll Draft Supplemental EIR, March 1989 Sweetwater Union Hiqh School District, Thomas Silva -5- Schools in this district are at capacity and the district has added 19 relocated classrooms over the past two years to serve the growth. Bussing is being utilized to alleviate the overcrowding and to achieve ethnic balance. Current developer fees of $0.67 per square foot have been determined by the District to be inadequate to provide facilities for this development. The incorporation of this project into Mello-Roos Community Facilities District #5, established by the City of Chula Vista School District, would mitigate the impact of the project on the elementary school system below a level of significance. Approximately six middle and ten high school students would be generated by this project. Students from the project would be served by the Sweetwater Union High School District, and would attend Bonita Jr. and Sr. High schools. However, the District has indicated that present boundaries could change in the future. While total capacity for Bonita Jr. High School is 1,524 students, it currently has an enrollment of 1,525 students. The total capacity for Bonita High School is 1,932 students. It has a current enrollment of 1,740 students. The Sweetwater District will add four relocatable classrooms to Bonita High and three relocatable classrooms at Bonita Jr. High for the 1989-90 school year. The Sweetwater District has begun EastLake High School in the EastLake development. This facility is expected to serve 2,~00+ students. Completion is expected for the 1991-92 school year. Preliminary planning has begun on the middle school facility within Rancho del Rey SPA III, south of East H Street on Paseo Ranchero. 11. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted in July 1988 by RECON. Two sensitive botanical and no sensitive zoological resources were present on the property. Diegan coastal sage scrub found on the project site, is considered a sensitive plant community. The development will adversely effect the coastal sage scrub community on the project site. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. According to the biological report, habitat value on the site is low. The native vegetation occurs as an island, surrounded by development or by highly disturbed areas. To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should he revegetated with native plant species. -6- 12. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. E. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Traffic The project proposed 54 single family residences which can be expected to generate 648 ADT. The project is served by Telegraph Canyon Road which is currently maintaining an E level of service. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its present two and four lanes to six lanes under a separate project. With an upgrade to six lanes, Telegraph Canyon Road would maintain an A level of service with the addition of the ADT from this project. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will not significantly affect Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. Parks/Recreation The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project. 3. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. It is the policy of the District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per years to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and reduce the impact of the project on water resources below a level of significance, the proposed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline between Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court (across the northerly line of the proposed project) be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet the Otay Water District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. -7- 4. G~ology and Soils No significant geotechnical impacts would occur from the implementation of the project as long as building codes are adhered to by the developer. 5. Noise A noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the proposed project from noise generated by Telegraph Canyon Road which has been proposed to be expanded to six lanes. The 65 dB(A) noise contour is located 169 feet from the centerline. The nearest residential unit is 250 feet from the road, therefore, no siqnificant noise impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 6. School s Both the Sweetwater District and the Chula Vista City School District are currently at capacity. The generation of students by the proposed project would impact the schools located in the attendance areas of the project site. Both the Sweetwater District and the Chula Vista District have indicated that current developer fees are not adequate to provide facilities for this development. The districts have also indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would reduce the impacts of the projects to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources Two sensitive botanical resources, Diegan coastal sage scrub and the San Diego sunflower exist on the project site. Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive plant community and will be adversely impacted by the implementation of the proposed project. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. To reduce the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should be revegetated with native plant species. 8. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. IJo historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. -8- F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Si~nifi.cant Effects 1. Traffic Telegraph Canyon Road will not be significantly impacted with the additional traffic generated by the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 2. Parks/Recreation Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit are adequate to provide facilities for this project. The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3. Water It is the policy of the Otay Water District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per year to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and mitigate the impact of the project on water resources the Proposed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline that runs from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly lne of the proposed project be replaced. The developer has agreed to replace the pipeline. The developer will be required to meet the Otay Water District requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. 4. Geology and Soils No significant geotechnical impacts would occur from the implementation of the project as long as buildinq codes are adhered to by the developer, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 5. Noise There are no significant noise impacts associated with the project and no mitigation measures are required. -9- 6. Schools The Sweetwater and the Chula Vista City School districts have indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would mitigate the impacts of the project to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road would be revegetated with native plant species in accordance with the revegetation program devised by RECON. 8. Cultural Resources Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. G. F.indin~s 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. Although the project has the potential of significant environmental impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significance through measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City as identified and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. -10- All impacts to the surrounding community will be incremental and will not cause significant growth in the surrounding community to occur. Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impact. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There are no known hazardous materials on the property. The Project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orq.anizations City of Chula Vista: Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Shauna Stokes, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Keith Hawkins, Police Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson, Director of Planninq Otay Water District: Manuel Arroyo, Engineer Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva, Director of Planning Applicant's Agent: Dan S. Biggs Biggs Engineering Corporation 2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 121 San Diego, CA 92123 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista EIR-89-2 Rancho del Rey SPA II Draft Supplemental EIR GEOCON, Inc. Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation for Chula Vista-Olson Site -ll- 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. ENVIRON~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 6222P city of chula vista planning department CllYO~ environmental review section. CHULAVISTA ~OR UFFICE USE Case NO. INITIAL STUDY Receipt Ho.__~/~ Date Rec'd_ ~,-~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No.~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) NORTH ~lDF OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BFTWFFN APACHF RD AN!~ BI_I~N~ VISTA Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 6N2-050-06 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 54 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4. Name of Applicant WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO INC. Address 5473 KEARNY VILLA RD., SUITE 210 Phone 61q-?77-9~n City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip 9712~ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent BIGGS ENGINEERING Address 22q5 SAN DIEGO AVENUE: %IITTF 191 Phone 61§-2~8-5641 City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip 92110 Relation to Applicant PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER 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 ~ 0ther~'.~A . b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report --- Plans Hydrological Study Grading Plan Landscape Site Plan ---- Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map ---- Se~ting __ 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 835,045 or acreage 19.17 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. STREET: 4.22+ AC OPEN SPACE: 4.86+ AC. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family 54 Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 54 SINGLE F~ILY DETACHED 251 MAX. HEIGHT (2 STORY) C. Number of Units: 1 bedroom. ~ 2 bedrooms 0 3 bedrooms 0 4 bedrooms 54 Total units 54 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 2.82 D.U./AC. e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 5.35 D.U./AC. f. Estimated project population 54 X 3.5 = 189 g. Estimated sale or rental price range $250,000 + h. Square footage of floor areals) 2150 + - 2600+ SF + 600+SF GAP~qGE i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 0.45 MAX (0.36 AVG.) j. Humber of on-site parking spaces to be provided 1~? (3,/Lnl) + STREET PKG. k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 22% 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. ~stimated 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. N/A 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? qO~O00 + C.¥. h. How ~any cubic yards of fill wil~ be placed? 5~,000 ± C.Y. c. How n~uch area /sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 14~.} ~AC. d. What will be the - ~laximum depth ~f cut 27' ~ Average depth of cut _ 9' ~ Maximum depth of fill ~ ~ Average depth ef fill 10' ~. - 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 CONDITIONING~ GAS FURNACE, TYPICAL MODERN ELECTRIC APPLIANCES 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project Isq. ft. or acres) 4.~ + AC, 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A 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? 54o+ TRIPS/DAY 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. NFW fiTRFFTS~ EXTENSION OF GASt ELECTRIC~ AND SEWER LINES. CUT AND FILL qinPFq, DRAINAGE FACILITIES (AS REQUIRED) D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTA[ SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? YES (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? YES (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? /If yes, please e):plain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? YES(MINOR) SEE SOILS REPORT b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? YES EXISTING TRAINAGE CHANNEL ADJACENT TELEGP~qPH CANYON ROAD. - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. SFF TFNETATTVF MAP NO- gq.hR (ATTACHED} 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 ~ite in a natural or-partially natural state? THF PRQ. IFCT qTTF TS CIIRRFNTI Y TN ITtS NATURAL STATE b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. NO FXT%TING TREES ON SITE. B. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? To THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE NO KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES ARE LOCATED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? CURRENTLY, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO HAZARDOUS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF OR STORED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. LAND IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IN IT'S HATURAL STATE. - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South East N/A West N/A 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? IIf so, how many and what type?) NO Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION 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. *If acting f a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. '~_/_~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North ~_ / South East Does the project conform to the current zoning? 0 2. General Plan land use Uesignation on site: ~~ ~ ~k ~ North .~ ~,~/~ ~ ~,j~. ~ South ~ ~~< ~ ~.. ~ East ~( 2~,~ ~ ~ West ~ ' ' IS the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ( Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent t a. area so t?igna e _ C. ~f yes, describe the design techniques ~eing used to p~tect or enhance t e.scenicF~ .quality-~ of Chula Vis~a.), ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ How ~any acres of developed pack]and ace ~ith~n ~he Pa~k Service D~s~c~ of ~h~s pcojec~ as shown ~n ~he Parks and ~eccea~on E]emen~ of ~he Geneca] P]an? Nha~ ~s ~he curren~ park acreage requirements ~n ~he Park Service D~s~c~? How many ac~es o~ parkland ace necessary to serve ~he pcoposed p~o~ec~? ,(2AC/lO00 pop, ) Does ~he pro~ec~ s~te provide access ~o or have ~he potential ~o p~ov~de access ~o an~ m~neca] resource? (If so, descc~be ~n de~ai],) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementa ry Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 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: Director ot Planning or Representative Date G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the~roject site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? ~-~, BUT 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 ~he p~oject? ~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site g. Are they adequate to serve the project7 ~s. a. ~a~ roads 'provide primary access to the project7 b. Eha~ fs the es~fma~ed numbe~ of one-way auto ~fps ~o be generated b~ ~he p~o~ec~ (pe~ day)? 5E~ I~ c. ~ha~ fs ~he ADT and estimated ]eve~ of se~vfce before and af~e~ pro~ec~ compl e~ Afte~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve ~he project? If not, explain briefly. e. ~f~'~ be n~essary ~a~ eddf[~ona~ dedication, Widening and/or ~mprovemen~ be made ~o ex~s[~ng If so, spec~ ~he general nature of [he ~ecessar~ ac[~ons. Case No. 2. .Geology a. Is the project site subject' to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Landslide or slippage? ' --~;~c~rc%eC(~ b. Is an engineAring geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~. 4. Soils a. Are therg any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the Project b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~%. 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? ~'L~: - 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 enog~h to justify t~t a nois~, analysis ~ reared of the applicant? ~%, ~q~'~ ~ ~/~qKmph ~yn 7. Air Ouality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips £mission Grams of ~(per day) Factor Pollution CO Hydrocarbons (~' X 118.3 : NOx (NO2) X 20.0 Particulates = /Z..~,0 8. ~e Generation How much solid and liquid ~sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? JCha~ is the location and size o~sting sewer lines o~r adjacent to the site?~" VOP ~ ......... ' , ~j~e~ Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? .~S. -- 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 [acilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. Include any potentia] to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~-''~- ~n -- bate - 13- Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire ~ta. tion and ,what is the Fire Departm~e~t'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? ~p~.) 3. Rem~ks .~A~' (~~ ~ ~~ ~ -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? Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Community parks ' 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative RECCN Regional Environmental Consultants August 2, 1988 [AUO] r~4] ~ Mr. Thomas K. Olson Baldwin Moore Commercial Real Estate Services 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108 Reference: Cultural Resource Studies for Bonita Vista Townhomes (RECON Number R-1855) Dear Mr. Olson: This letter describes the results of a survey for historic and prehistoric archaeologi- cal sites on the Bonita Vista Townhomes project area (Figures 1 and 2). The cultural resources studies conducted for this 19-acre l~r-0perty included fi~ld''~tnd- archival research. No cultural resources were found as a result of the survey, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Although Telegraph Canyon has not been completely surveyed for cultural resources, studies in nearby Proctor Valley indicate that the region is rich in prehistoric archaeological sites. An archaeological survey for the SDG&E Southwest Powerlink (Townsend 1984) resulted in the discovery of several sites north of the project area. Two recent studies by RECON (Wade 1988a and 1988b) examined over 1,500 acres in the Proctor Valley area; both historic and prehistoric cultural resources were found during these studies. Southeast of the project area, an archaeological survey of Janal Ranch (APC 1980) resulted in the discovery of sites containing a variety of artifact types. The presence of fine-grained stone in the region made this area particularly attractive to the prehistoric inhabitants of San Diego. Therefore, many of the sites in this area are workshops where stone tools were made from these materials. I conducted an intensive, on-foot investigation of the project area on July 21, 1988. The survey area was completely covered by transects not more than twenty meters apart. Plant cover was open, and ground visibility was good in most areas. The upper portions of the property were covered in disturbed grassland; slopes and the mid-portion of the property were covered with coastal sage scrub. The lower portion of the property, adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, was covered with disturbed weedy annuals. The more level areas of the property contained exposed cobble beds; none of these had evidence of cultural modification. No historic resources were noted on the property. Record searches were requested from the San Diego Museum of Man and San Diego State University South Coastal Information Center. In addition, other projects within the area were examined for comparison. Because no historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area, development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. 1276 Moren8 Boulevard · San Diego, CA 92110-3815 · (619) 275-3732 2922 N 70th St. ° Scottsdale, AZ 85251 · (602) 947-8042 3120 Chicago Avenue · Riverside, CA 92507 ° (714) 784-9460 L~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 o o'r~.~h-.,.. ,i,.:'.' , · PROJECT LOCATION .'~;?- 2000 , ¢~, ,.::-'~:.:: T-" ' ' ..' FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. 7.5 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, NATIONAL CITY, JAMUL MTS., IMPERIAL BEACH, AND OTAY MESA QUADRANGLES R-1855 7/88 Mr. Thomas K. Olson -2- August 2, 1988 If you have any questions about the cultural resources studies, please contact me. Sincerely, Susan M. Hector, Ph.D. Director, Cultural Resources SMH:st References Cited Archaeological Planning Collaborative (APC) 1980 An Archaeological Record Search and Field Survey of the Janal Ranch Property. San Diego County, California. Townsend, Jan 1984 Southwest Powerlink Cultural Resources Management Plan (Volumes I-III). Wirth Environmental Services. Wade, Sue A. 1988a Archaeological Testing of Three Sites Within the State Route 125 Proposed Alignment. RECON. 1988b Archaeological Survey of Baldwin 1200-Acre Property. RECON. REOC)N Regional Environmental Consultants Mr. Thomas K. Olson Baldwin Moore Commercial Real Estate Services 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108 Reference: Biological Resources Survey for Bonito Vista Townhomes (RECON Number R-I855) Dear Mr. Olson: A survey for the biological resources on the 19-acre property on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road and just west of Apache Drive (Figures 1 and 2) was conducted on July 21, 1988. Two sensitive botanical and no sensitive zoological resources were present on the property. Diegan coastal sage scrub, the short shrubby plant community on the property, is considered a sensitive plant community. The San Diego sunflower (Vigniera laciniata), a sensitive plant species, was present as an element of the coastal sage scrub plant community, however, few individuals were found. To lessen the impacts to the coastal sage scrub, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should be revegetated with native plant species. Total compensation for the loss of coastal sage scrub is not possible within the boundaries of the project. 1. Survey Results Native Diegan coastal sage scrub and annual grassland was present on the higher elevations of the property (Figure 3). The steep slope facing Telegraph Canyon Road has been terraced and now is covered in weeds and annual grasses. A narrow drainage along the edge of Telegraph Canyon Road supports scattered willows (Salix lasiolepis) but no other wetland or riparian species. A dried farm pond at the southeast corner of the site is surrounded by pepper trees (Schimts molle), and no wetland or riparian species currently exist at that location. The Diegan coastal sage scrub was present over approximately 10.2 acres of the property. The sage scrub was dominated by coastal sagebrush (Artemisia califor~ica), with scattered other shrub species including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), matchweed (G~ttierrezia bracteata), coast encelia (Encelia californica), and San Diego sunflower. A few cactus (Opuntia spp.) were mixed with the shrubs. Few annuals were present; most have gone to seed and are no longer visible or identifiable during the middle of the summer. The remainder of the property has been disturbed and now supports weedy annual grassland of predominantly wild oats (Ave~a fatzta), smooth brome (Bromtts mollis), and other weedy plant species. Plant species observed during the survey are given in Table 1. Several bird species were identified during the survey (Table 2). All the species are commonly found in these habitats. Rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.) and California ground squirrels (Citelhts beecheyi) were observed, and a dead grey fox (Urocyon cinereoarge~teus) was found on site. Habitat value on the site is low because the native vegetation occurs as an island, surrounded either by development or by highly 1276 Morena Boulevard · San Diego, CA 92110-3815 · (619) 275-3732 2922 N. 70th S~ · Scottsdale, AZ 85251 · (502) 947-8042 3120 Chicago Avenue · Riverside, CA 92507 · (714) 784-9460 '~.:.-- ~:..::. ~, ..-. :'- !.-;'"-~ '""' ~' '-': F;'-'." ~ \.~ i ."x. \ ,',,'~.' " PROJECT LOCATION -~-~" "'"' '~:'1: ~ '~'; . .-- ~ v ', ,, -__, ,',, ':- ~..__~-' x' . . c %.,~ / · ~. .... ~ { --- -' ,,.: .., ....-::,'_.... ,/ '-. ",.x ..... -....- FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. 7.5 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, NATIONAL CITY, JAMUL MTS., IMPERIAL BEACH, AND OTAY MESA QUADRANGLES R-1855 7~88 --ZZZ _Z~__ZZZZZ_ZZZZ----~ZZZZ--Z~Z TABLE 2 BIRDS OBSERVED Common Name Scientific Name American kestrel Falco sparverius California quail Callipepla califomica califomica Killdeer Charadr~us vociferus vocifents Mourning dove Zenaida macroura marginella Anna's hummingbird Archilochus anna Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota tachina Common raven Comus corax cla~onensis Bushtit Psaltr~pa~s minimus mmimus Bewick's wren Thyromanes bewickii Wrentit Chamaea fasciata henshawi House finch Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis Brown towhee Pipilo fuscus senicula Western meadowlark Stumella neglecta Mr. Thomas K. Olson -2- August 4, 1988 disturbed areas. Development occurs to the east and west of the site; disturbed weedy land and an area of bare dirt occur for about 300 feet north of the site, and Southwestern College beyond that. Annual grasslands, and no coastal sage scrub, occur on the hillsides south of Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. Sensitive Resources Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered sensitive by the California Natural Diver- sity Data Base (Holland, 1986), a program within the Non-Game Heritage Section of the California Department of Fish and Game. Westman, a researcher of the southern California sage scrub communities, considers the habitat to be endangered because as little as 10 to 15 percent of its former acreage remains (Westman, 1987). Once wide- spread on the coastal plains and shallow slopes of southern California, sage scrub communities are rapidly being depleted by clearing for agriculture and urbanization. No plant or animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered were found during the survey of the property. Several sensitive plant species (Table B) are known to occur in Telegraph Canyon in habitats such as those present on the site. Only one, the San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata) was observed on the property. Fewer than ten shrubs were found. One sensitive bird species, the California black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura californica), occurs in coastal sage scrub habitat such as that found on the property. The California black-tailed gnatcatcher is a candidate for listing on the federal Endangered Species List and is a California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern. Everett (1979) considers the bird declining in San Diego County, and Remsen (1979) lists it as declining throughout California. The range of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher covers the coastal plains of southern California and the most northern part of Baja California. No California black-tailed gnatcatchers were observed during the early morning survey. 3. Impacts All the native coastal sage scrub on the property would be impacted by the proposed project. Approximately one acre of coastal sage scrub along the west boundary of the property is not within the area of the building pads but would probably be lost to construction impacts, or later to brush management for fire control. 4. Recommendations Approximately six acres of open space is proposed along the south side of the property adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, however, only a very small strip of coastal sage scrub along the western edge of the property is included in the open space. Preservation of the coastal sage scrub is the preferred method of decreasing the impacts and would require redesigning the project to preserve a portion of the coastal sage scrub. Altering the project design is not feasible, considering the topography of thc land. If the coastal sage scrub were preserved, the scrub would be in the middle of the property and construction would occur all around it. The small patch of coastal sage scrub would be totally isolated from any surrounding habitat and would become seriously degraded in a very short time. Pulling the development north from the open space area TABI.E 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES CNPS State/Federal Species Code Code Habitat Type Acanthomintha ilicifolia 3-3-2 CE/C2 Clay soils of mesas and valleys Hemizonia conjugens 3-3-2 CE/C2 Clay slopes and mesas Ericameria palmeri 2-2-1 --/-- Dry valleys and plains Viguiera laciniata 1-2-1 --/-- Open slopes; observed on site NOTE: See Table 4 for explanation of codes. Mr. Thomas K. Olson -3- August 4, 1988 could provide additional area, but the coastal sage scrub would be directly adjacent to the development and would need to be managed for fire control. The only method of reducing impacts to the coastal sage scrub within the boundaries of the project would be to establish coastal sage scrub within the proposed open space adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, since, at the present time, the open space is contiguous with the undeveloped area on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road. Of the six acres, approximately 1.6 acre is within 100 feet of the proposed structures and would require management for fire control, leaving 4.4 acres for open space and possible mitigation for the coastal sage scrub. Impacts would be reduced, though not totally compensated. Revegetation should include dense plantings of coastal sage scrub species, and a hydroseed application of only native species on the steep slope and along the side of the small drainage. Species should include, but not be limited to, coastal sagebrush, San Diego sunflower, coast encelia (Encelia californica), red-bush monkey-flower (Mimulus puniceus), elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel-leaf sumac (Malosma laurina), and appropriate native annual species for rapid ground cover and color. A revegetation plan should be prepared by a biologist for use by the landscape architect. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Bobbie Steele Certified Ecologist, E.S.A. BAS:st References Cited Everett, William T. 1979 Threatened, Declining and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego County. Sketches 29(10):2-3. Holland, Robert F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. Remsen, Jan 1979 Species of Special Concern: California's Imperiled Birds. Western Tat~ager 45(8):1-8. Westman, Walter E. 1987 Implications of Ecological Theory for Rare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. In Conservation a~d Management of Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings from a Conference of the California Native Plant Society, edited by T.S. Elias, pp. 133-140. Sacramento. 10595 JAMACHA BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLE'( CALIFORNIA 92078 TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619 March 22, 1989 ~fA2 2 7 City of Chula Vista Department of Planning and Land Use 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attention: Douglas E. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Subject:Notice of Initial Study for Woodcrest Development (Chula Vista Tract 89-8) Gentlemen: The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water district may be limited during hot weather days of the year. To address this problem, District staff is preparing a water allocation report which is expected to be approved by the Otay Water District Board of Directors in the immediate future. The Woodcrest Southwestern project will be considered for water service in accordance with provisions of the water allocation report. In general, there is a limitation on the number of dwell- ing units that can be provided service by the District in a year. At this time, the number is 1900 EDU's per year. To qualify for water service the developer must meet certain requirements which are stated in the water allocation report. Additionally, the District was granted an easement from the City of Chula Vista for a 12" pipeline that runs in a east-west direc- tion from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly line of the proposed development. Depending on the grading required for this project, there is a possibility that the pipeline may have to be replaced. Enclosed is a copy of the ease- ment document that describes the location of the pipeline in more detail. Please call Manuel Arroyo at 670-2238 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Ga-fy E. Decker Chief Engineer GED/MA:cp Enclosure Mason ©nd Cannon 200 TOWNE CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WILLIAM S CANNON March 21 , 1989 T EL E~:~HON El {6191426'5OOO Environmental Review Coordinator P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Re: Project on north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Apache Drive and Buena Vista - Woodcrest Development Dear Doug: I am in receipt of your Notice of Initial Study and do not know whether or not the information contained in this letter will affect anything in your initial study. As you may be aware, this property now in escrow between Baldwin & Baldwin and Woodcrest Development was originally purchased by Baldwin from Mary Centrullo. At the time of the transfer there was to have been a 60 foot wide easement at the northern end of the property retained by Ms. Centrullo. Furthermore, there were discussions with regard to transfers of density between Ms. Centrullo's retained property and that which was transferred to Baldwin & Baldwin. It now appears that the escrow company failed to carry through with the documentation regarding the 60 foot easement and the parties are now at odds over the transaction. Ms. Centrullo has indicated to me that any density transfer may also be in jeopardy due to this dispute. We feel that you should be made aware of the dispute and the fact that the densities on the properties may also be in dispute. If I can be of any service in clarifying my client's position, please advise. Sincerely, WILLIAM S. CANNON WSC :d n CC: Mary Centrullo CHUI,A iSTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 E~ CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARDOFE~CAT~N DR J~ERH D CUMMINGS OPAL FULLER SHARON GILES JUDYSCHULENBERG FRANKATARANTINO March 20, 1989 SUPERI ENDENT MAR 2 2 1989 ROSERTJ~4ct3ARTHY Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 RE: Case No: IS-89-63 Project Description: 54 lot single family development Project Location: North side of Telegraph Canyon Rd., between Apache Dr. & Buena Vista Way Project Applicant: Woodcrest Development of San Diego 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 to serve new growth. Students are being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation. Busing is also utilized to assist in achieving ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is in the Chula Vista Hills School attendance area. The current developer fee of 67¢ per square foot of habitable living space is inadequate to provide facilities for this development. The District would certainly be willing to discuss the possibility of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District as an alternate form of financing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp Sweetwater Union High School District March 20, 1989 Mr. Douglas D. Reid ~A~ ~ ~ Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chu]a Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-89-63 ~OODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO 54 lot single family development Due to unprecedented growth in residential development east of 1-805, the Sweetwater Union High School District is experiencing severe overcrowded conditions. This has caused staff to look towards alternative funding mechanisms which will allow for the construction of permanent facilities for those projects which will have a significant impact upon the district. The Woodcrest Development is such a project. The proposed 54 residential units is anticipated to generate approximately 16 secondary school students. Current costs to house these students in permanent classrooms is approximately $198,720. The applicant's payment of developer fees will not provide sufficient funds to house the students generated from this project. Additionally, the district has far exceeded its permanent facility capacity. As a mitigation measure to the payment of developer fees, the Sweetwater Union High School District has relied upon the implementation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts as a means to generate revenues which could be used to build new permanent classroom space. To accommodate lesser sized projects, those which are over 50 units and less than 200 units, an annexable Mello-Roos, Community Facilities District #§, has been established, The annexation of WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO into this Community Facilities District will mitigate the project's impact to the school district. The District request that this project be reviewed for potential inclusion into the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District #5. Mr. Douglas D. Reid March 20, 1989 Please do not hesitate to call me at 691-5553 if you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence. Re.~r~ctfull¥, Tnomas Silva'- - ~ ~- Director of Planning TS/sly Enclosure cc: Kate Shurson Biggs Engineering Corp. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WIlL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. Fullerton Savings & Loan Association List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Same as "1" above 2. If any perso~ 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. John Wertin of Woodcrest Development of San Dieqor Inc. 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 anyLt_her group or combinat~ct~g~__~~.~~ unit." Si~nat~r~of appTic~nt/date Ronal~/J. Van Daele, Vice President WPC 0707~ Woodcrcs' t Development of San Diego, Inc. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-37; request to expand Community Hospital at 741 Medical Center Court - Community Hospital of Chula Vista A. BACKGROUND This item is a request to add 110,000 sq. ft. and 85 beds to the existing Community Hospital Acute Care Facility at 751 Medical Center Court. The proposal also includes 104 additional parking spaces. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-83 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-89-83. 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-89-83. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council the approve PCC-89-37, to subject to the following conditions: a. The project shall comply with the plans approved or conditionally approved by the Chula Vista Design Review Committee. b. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Marshal and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any development or building permits. C. DISCUSSION The existing Community Hospital complex involves approximately 17 acres, and includes the 120,000 sq. ft., 132-bed main acute care hospital, and the 37,700 sq. ft., 99-bed Birch Patrick skilled nursing facility Ithe Birch Patrick facility has been approved for an eventual Phase 2 expansion to 138 beds). The site also includes 410 parking spaces. The complex is surrounded by vacant lands to the north, east and soutH, and by other medical facilities and offices to the west on the opposite side of Medical Center Court. The proposal includes a five-level addition (basement plus four floors) and a single-story parking platform. The addition would match the height and adjoin the westerly, or front, elevation of the existing structure. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 2 The parking platform would be constructed over the existing surface parking area fronting on Medical Center Court. The expansion would increase the hospital from 120,000 sq. ft. and 132 beds to 230,000 sq. ft. and 217 beds. The fifth level would be left as shell space with the capacity to accommodate an additional 52 beds in the future. Total parking would increase from 410 and 514 spaces. D. ANALYSIS The expansion proposal is consistent with the use of the site and surrounding medical facilities, and will provide additional acute care hospital beds to serve the South Bay area. Total parking of 514 spaces exceeds the 451 spaces required by Code to serve the existing needs 1217 hospital beds and 99 convalescent beds) and additional future needs (52 hospital and 39 convalescent beds) of the complex based on 1.5 spaces per hospital bed, and 0.33 spaces per convalescent bed. The estimated 3,500 additional daily traffic trips will maintain level of service "B" or better on surrounding streets. The project is scheduled to be considered by the Design Review Committee on July 13, 1989. Staff is comfortable with the site design and basic massing of the structures, but is concerned with the architectural compatibility between the new and existing buildings. As a result, the DRC is being asked to continue the item in order that this issue may be resolved with the project architects. The Fire Marshal has offered the following comments and requirements: 1. Provide plans of sprinkler system to Fire Department for review. 2. Provide at least one additional fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 2500 gpm; location to be determined by Fire Marshal. NOTE: There currently exists a water delivery problem at this site. 3. Access roads shall be a minimum of 20 ft. wide. 4. Provide a stand pipe system. 5. Provide a fully conforming fire alarm system. 6. Fire Department to locate fire alarm annunciator panels and all controls to fire sprinkler system. The Engineering Department has stated that the following items will be required in connection with the building permit for the parking structure: 1. Sewer, traffic signal and development impact fees will be assessed when the building permit is issued. 2. A construction permit for work performed in the street right-of-way. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 3 3. Public improvements including, but not limited to, realignment and widening of driveways. 4. A grading permit will be required. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the request will provide an additional 83 hospital beds and related medical facilities to serve the needs of the community. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The expansion will occur within the existing Medical Center Court complex and will be supported by adequate off-street parking. The estimated traffic increase can be accommodated comfortably on adjacent streets. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposal will be required to comply with all applicable codes and conditions and regulations prior to the issuance of development permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Approval of the permit is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property and General Plan policy to encourage the establishment, expansion, improvement and modernization of hospitals and related health facilities within the Chula Vista Planning Area. WPC 6451 P % % % VISTA t HILL · ' · C-O:F !~, F~-S-4 (COUNTY) ,. :.~,~ PROJECT ~ j ~o '3NI 'dflO~O NOIS3fl tl3]H311S ]HI '~LLIdSOH ~LIN~I I~l~OD ~ L J .~o 'ONI 'dnouo NOlS~ I:I~-IHOLI~ ::IHJ. , I L j L '3NI 'dlgOBO NOIS3O }t3lH:)llS 3HI J L negative declaration-' PROJECT NAME: Community Hospital of Chula Vista - Expansion PROJECT LOCATION: 751 Medical Center Court PROJECT APPLICANT: Community Hospital of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-89-83 DATE: June 23, 1989 A. Project Setting The project site is north of Medical Center Court (Assessor's Parcel Number 64-01-18), adjacent to the existing Chula Vista Community Hospital. It covers approximately 17 acres of land which presently supports parking areas, driveways, lawn areas, and landscaping. All of these areas were previously graded and filled prior to construction of the existing facility. The La Nacion Fault is approximately 0.1 mile west of the project area. No native vegetation exists on the property, but there are a number of large eucalyptus and pine trees that would be removed with the project's construction. The existing medical facilities on-site include the 131-bed acute care hospital and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility (Birch Patrick Convalescent Center). A helipad is immediately northeast of the hospital, behind the existing auxiliary annex. The areas to the north, south, and east of the hospital are presently vacant and relatively undisturbed. Vista Hill Hospital and other medical offices are west of the property. B. Project Description The project would add 110.000 square feet of new space adjacent to the existing hospital facility, which presently has 120,000 square feet of space. The project would require a Conditional Use Permit and approval by the Design Review Committee. The addition would consist of a single story structure and a four-story tower immediately west of and adjacent to the existing building. The tower would consist of four stories over a basement and would match the height of the existing tower. The first two levels would allow for expansion of existing departments and provide 8 new beds. The third level would provide new maternity facilities and 21 new beds, and the fourth floor would afford space for an additional 53 medical/surgical beds. Level five would allow for future expansion of medical/surgical beds. In all, 82 beds would be added, bringing the total to 312 for the hospital and convalescent center. The project also proposes to add a parking platform above the existing on-grade parking. This facility would add approximately 90 new spaces, increasing the total on-site parking to 500 spaces. No new road construction is proposed, although the existing driveways would require realignment to accommodate the expansion. The project is expected to generate 3,513 one-way auto trips per day. city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section CHULA VISTA C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The City of Chula Vista's current zoning and General Plan land use designation on the property is R-l-H, Hospital. General Plan land use designations surrounding the site are Medium Density Residential, although current zoning south of the property includes Park/Recreation, Commercial, and Agricultural; Park/Recreation and Commercial to the east; and Commercial-Office and Park/Recreation to the west. The proposed development is in conformance with the existing zoning and land use designations. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The estimated Fire/EMS response time is six minutes, which is within the seven-minute threshold standard. 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service in the area, based on the threshold standards. 3. Traffic The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the existing levels of service on vicinity roads and intersections would not be adversely affected. 4. Park/Recreation The parks and recreation threshold standard does not apply to the project as it does not propose residential uses. 5. Drainage The Engineering Department has determined that with the Planned construction of on-site drainage facilities, storm water flows and .volumes from the project area would be accommodated@ and City standards would not be exceeded. -- 6. Sewer City staff have evaluated existing sewer lines adjacent to the project and determined that they would be adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority was notified and has not identified any constraints to providing an adequate water supply for the project. city of chula vlata planning department ¢IIYOf: environmental review Section (]HUL~VJ~'rA E. Identification of Env:ronmental Effects In accordance with the Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts. The applicant will be required to pay developer fees to both the Chula Vista City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District prior to issuance of a building permit. F. 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 does not support any sensitive habitat or species. While the La Nacion Fault lies west of the site, a geotechnical evaluation determined that there is no indication of the fault extending through the proposed expansion. The application of standard engineering practices will avoid adverse effects associated with potentially expansive soils. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project would not achieve any short-term objectives to the disadvantage of longer-term goals, as it is in full conformance with City zoning and land use designations identified in the Chula Vista General Plan. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but · cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project would not create adverse cumulative effects on the environment, as it is comparable in scale to the existing uses in the area. city ol chule villa p~anning department CITY O~ -- envlronmenlal review leCllOI1 (::HULA VISTA The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No substantial increases in ambient noise levels would result with the project's construction, nor would any hazardous materials be generated. G. 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 Applicant's Agent: Steve Ward, Doug Mayoris The Stichler Design Group 9245 Skypark Court, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123-4311 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code 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. E~TVIR~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6417P city of Chula villa planning depJrtment CITY C~ '~ environmental rlviJw IlCtloi1 CHULA VISTA FUR OFFICE USE INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. -~p~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by~~ Application Fo~ Project No. ~~ A, ~KG~ ....... 1. PROJECT TITLE O~',,'l/vlO~lT¥ HOE'~::'IT. AI._ 06: ~0~ Vi~T~- ~P~JO~ 2. PR~ECT L~ATION (S~reet address or description) Assessors ~o~, P~ge ~ P~rcel N~. ~l-ot-I~ 3. BRIEF PR~ECT DE~RIPTION ~E ATT~HT '~' 4. Na~e of Applicant C_.Z~UHIT¥ HOc~ptTAI~ Ct= C~-IOL~ VIC~T~ Address ~1 ~(~L ~T~ ~o~T Phone City ~Ho~ vt~TA S~te C~ Zip ~olo 5. Na~ of Preparer/Agent THE ~~ ~ G~P: Ad.ess ~4~ ~P~ ~0~T~ ~iTE ~ Phone ~J~-~-~ City ~ ~ State ~ Zip Relation to Applicant ~IT~T 6. Indicate all pemits or approvals and enclosures or ~c~nts required by the Environmntal Review Coordinator. a. Pemits or approvals required: General Plan Revision X Design Revi~ C~itt~ Public Proj~t Rezoni ng/Prezoni ng Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Pmcise Plan Grading Pe~it Design Review Board S~cific Plan Tentative Parcel ~p Redevelop~nt Agency Cond. Use Pemit Site Plan & Arch. Revi~ Variance Other b. Enclosures or docu~nts (as required by ~e Enviro~ntal Revi~ Coordinator). Location ~p Arch. Elevations Eng. ~olo~ Report Grading Plan ~ Landsca~ Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel ~p Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan ~ Tentative Subd. ~p Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improve~nt Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Pemit or ~ ~ils Report Other Approvals Requimd - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage .T501~7~ or acreage %7. Z~ /~_acq~ . If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. ~//~ 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Mul ti 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 (OU/total acres) e. Net density (OU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is Fommercial 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 basts 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, cmmercial or industrial compl ere this secti on. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided ~C>~P(T~L. c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. HeiSt of structure(s) - ~xi~ ~ e. Ult~ma~ occupancy load of pro~ect ~7 f. Number of on-stte parktng spaces to be provided g. 5qua~ feet of mad and paved surfaces C. PR~ECT CH~CTERISTICS 1. If ~e project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydr~arbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify th~. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? ~looo c~,¥P~. AT h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded7 ~/~ 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. ) k~/v C~_~413~4L PLANT F-~C:4~IT~ Indica~ ~e a~un~ of natural o~en s~ace tha~ ts ~a~ of ~e ~ro~ec~ (sq. ft. or ac~s) 5. ]f the project will ~sult in any e~lo~nt opportunJttes descrJ~ ~e nature and t~ of these jobs. ~DD'~ H~]TAC ~AF~ ~ILL 6. Will highly fla~ble or potentially explosive ~rials or substances be used or stored within the proj~t 7. ~w many esti~ted aut~bile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 8. ~scribe (if any) off-site improve~nts necessary to implant the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improve~nts include but not limited to the roll,lng: ne)~ st~ets; street widening; extension of gas, el~trtc, and sewer lines; cut and fill slo~s; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. O. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETI'ING 1. Geol o9), Has a geology study been conducted on the property9 YE ~1~ (If yes, please attach) ' Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? ~;4~e_ Al-r~r-~K=~> (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrol o~ 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? ~ b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? ~ -S- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly tnte or toward a d~stic water supply, lake, re~rvoir or bay? d. Could drain_age f?_o_m ~e_s]t_e_ c_au_s_e _er_os. ion or stl~tion to adjacent areas? ~o e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ~/~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. ~l~Jl~ ll~ ~ ~X(~l. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are ~ere any kno~ historical resou~es loca~d on or near ~e project site? b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? ~0 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. -6- b.Describe all structures and land uses currently extsttng on adjacent property. North Sout~ ~/..6-~ i~'T- ............... East West 7. Soctal a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) Please provide any other infor~,~tion which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* 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 enviro~anental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. This proposed expansion will add approximately 110,000 s.f. of new spaca to the existin~ acute care facility ~hich currently has 120,000 s.f. of space. Ccastruction of the nee facility will be edjacont to the ontire ~e~tern ~d~e of the existi~ buildin~ and extend in a westerly direction. A ~aJortty of the ne~ space viii be in the nee tower ~hich will be adjacent to the existin~ single story ancillary portion of the existin[~ hospital. This nee toeer will have a basement plus four floors and vii1 ~atch the heigat of the exis%in~ · ~-r ......... ,,,~ ri?s~--t'~l~vei~ 0£ ~u= new cc~ructio~ Will l~siCally provide expansion space for existin~ departments within the existin~ bulldi~. The third level will provide space for the hospital to provide · aternity services chile the fourth floor vii1 provide additional ~d/surg beds to complement those in the existin8 facility. The fifth floor is planned to be 'shell space' at this ti~e, however, in the future it could be occupied by edditional ~ed/surg beds. The followin~ is a sv~ry of now and existin~ bed capacity for the acute care facility, as veil as Birch Patrick Convalescent Center. O Bed~ Nee Basement, Level C~e 8 Beds Now Level Two 21 Beds Now Level Three 53 Beds New Level Four 0 Bed~ Nee Level Five 82 Beds Nee Construction 131 Beds F. xistin8, Acute Care Hospital 99 Beds ExistinR, Birch Patrick 312 Beds Total In addition to the nee hospital construction discussed above additional parkin~ spaces will be added. The now parking spaces vi11 be created by buildin~ a parkin~ platfor~ above the existin8 on 8fade public parkin~ in the front of the hospital. This new platfor~ will provide approximately 90 now ...... space~ i~creas-ing~he-tota~-on- site parkin~ capacity to 500 spaces for the acute care hospital and Birch Patrick. -8- Case No.~ -~cfl_?l~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: -x~>~-~-- ~ North ~_ \- \-~, South ~-<t ,~ ~ ~: East -~ -~y.. West C~-~ - ~ Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use QesJgnation on site: North 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? q~m Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ IIf yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) i-'How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? {If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 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: Directl~r or,Planning or Representative Date G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. .Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the proje, ct 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? ~ ~,.~ ~ ~ f. What qs the location and description of existing~/_~i~~. drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project~ 2. ~ransportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. ~hat ]~ the estimated number of one-way auto trips ~o ~e generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After L.O.S. ~co A ' d. Are the primary access r~dequate to serve the prodect?~ If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? __~-1o. If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. 3. G_eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~e. Liquefaction? ~c Landslide or slippage? .Mo:, b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~ e. b. ~f yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~. c. ]sa soils report necessary?~.~lL~% ~ 5. Land Form ~~. a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site? ~ ~ b. Wha= ~s the maximum natural slope of the site? ~ Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough ~o ~ustify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~ ~0 Air Ouali Case ~1o. ~ &c~_~ If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Yehicle Trips Emission Grams of ~per~ay) Factor CO - ~ ~ -. P~llut~on Hydrocarbons ~l~ X 118.3 : ~lOx ~H02) ~;~ X 18.3 Particulates ~% X 20.0 Sulfur ~l~ ~ ].5 = ~t~X .78 = ~ &70- 8. ~&~e Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid '~O ~/D~ Liquid J4Z I~hat is the location and to the Site? A ~O" LI Size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Zmpact ']f 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 ~mpact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public Street, sewer, culvert, etc. servin9 the projec~ area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTNENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Departm~ent's e§timated 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 ~),0 ~ ~ ~Jq~ ~o~T, ~v ~J~(~ Fire Marshal Date CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address F751~~j~lan File No.__ Checker ~-~Date ~2/~/~ Type Constr. ~F~_Occupancy ~ No. Stories Lf Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB-29 -13(a)- Case No. /3-.G'.~:~': 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 /~]g Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood ~[A Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council:~.Aicies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER (619) 691-5553 - ...... ~'- ...... June 14, 1989 ~UN 16 ~989 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: IS-89-83/Community Hospital of Chula Vista Please be adivsed that the above referenced development project will have an impact upon the Sweetwater Union High School District. Therefore, payment of commercial/industrial rate developer fees will be required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 691- 5553. Thomas Silva Director of Planning Ts/sf CHUT,A ¥iSTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425~-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUD9 JUDYSCHULENBERG JUN I 2 198,9 FRANKA. TARANTINO June 9, 1989 SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT J. ~cCA~y, E~O. Mr. DOUg Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chu]a Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No. [5-89-83 App]icant: Con~nunity Hospital of Chu]a Vista Location: 71 Medical Center Court Project: 110,000 Sq. Ft. Expansion Dear Mr. Reid: Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and the District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two years. Six more will be instal]ed 'chis Fall at. schools in the western portion of the District to assist in meeting growth demands. Students are also being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation, and to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that. this project is in the Parkview School attendance area. A developer fee of 12¢ per square foot is currently being charged to assist in providing facilities for this development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson ~ Director of Planning KS:dp CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following infornmtion must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. N/A List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Coamnittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: 'Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or co~inati~ acting as a unit.' (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) WPC 0701P Charles R. Coon, Assistant Director A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a) PCZ-89-G: Consideration to rezone 4.99 acres at the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road from R-l-7 to R-1-5-P - Stafford Gardner b) PCS-89-11: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, at intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road c) P-89-2: Consideration of precise plan for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11 A. BACKGROUND This proposal involves a rezoning, tentative subdivision map and precise plan for 4.99 acres known as Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, located westerly of the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Poad. The request is to rezone the property from R-l-7 Isingle family/7,~O0 sq. ft. lot size) to R-1-5-P (single family/5,000 sq. ft. lot size/precise plan) and develop the site with 21 single family dwellings. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-69, 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-89-69. B. RECOMMENDATION 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-89-69. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning, tentative map and precise plan for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 6 ft. minimum level width shall be provided between back of sidewalk and property line for all lots which back-on or side-on to "E" Street and Bonita Road. These areas as well as Lots A thru E and the eucalyptus grove shall be shown as separate lettered lots to be incorporated into an open space maintenance district which shall be formed at the request of the applicant. 2. Lot B shall be extended across the rear of Lot 17 to provide a minimum level width of 15 ft. from the back of sidewalk for landscaping. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 2 3. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements have been reached with both school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project prior to approval of the final map. 4. 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. 5. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect, to include the open space maintenance district lots as well as any special measures deemed necessary to accommodate additional street trees and perimeter trees throughout the project. 6. The developer shall be responsible for construction of full street improvements for all streets within the subdivision and for all street improvements for streets adjacent to the subdivision as shown on the Tentative Map and/or as modified by the City Engineer. 7. Public improvements as described in this resolution shall include, but not be limited to: AC pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic signals, street lights, signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer, water and drainage facilities. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. 8. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the subdivision as required by the City Engineer. 9. The developer shall request the vacation of that portion of Hilltop Drive located along the westerly property line of subject project. Said vacation shall be approved by the City Council prior to approval of the Final Map. 10. Access rights to and from Bonita Road and "E" Street shall be relinquished on all lots abutting on said streets. ll. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including as required by the City Engineer. 12. 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 (No. 1797 as amended) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 3 13. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual to include, but not be limited to, dry lane requirements. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. 14. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or to an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. 15. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving lO or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. 16. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall submit a study, to the approval of the City Engineer, analyzing the adequacy of the existing downstream sewer system to handle the sewage flow to be generated by the project. Said study shall identify the necessary mitigation measures to be generated to be implemented to meet City standards. 17. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the owner shall provide for the perpetual maintenance of the brow ditch proposed to be installed along the westerly property line. 18. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes. 19. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. 20. All buildings shall meet current City and Federal flood plain management standards. 21. The final vertical and horizontal alignment of Streets "A" and "B" and the intersection of Street "A" with Bonita Road shall meet sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. 22. Prior to the approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that adequate visibility to the existing traffic signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road has been provided for the eastbound traffic in Bonita Road. 23. Lot frontage or cul-de-sacs shall not be less than 35 feet unless approved by the City Engineer. 24. The owner shall be responsible for the construction of sidewalk along the entire frontage of the subject property on "E" Street. Any necessary transition to the existing improvements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 4 25. The subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of AC pavement and curb and gutter in Hilltop Drive to provide a total width of 20 feet (curb-to-curb). These improvements shall extend from Bonita Road to the northerly end of the existing pavement in Hilltop Drive. 26. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. 27. The following are Code requirements: a. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. b. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to the Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. c. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the subdivision. All utilities serving the subdivision shall be undergrounded. d. The developer shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. Residential Construction Taxes shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. e. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. f. The developer shall install street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of Chula Vista Municipal Code. g. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of Final Maps and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. The following conditions relate to the precise plan: 28. The project shall be subject to the following coverage and floor area ratio limitations: Lot Size Coverage FAR 7,000 sq. ft. or greater 0.40 0.50 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. 0.40 0.55 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. 0.40 0.60 Patio covers of 300 sq. ft. or less and open on two sides shall be exempt from the coverage and FAR minimums. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 5 29. Additions to dwellings other than patio covers shall be prohibited. The developer shall submit one or more patio cover designs for review and approval of staff and for exclusive use within the project. 30. Each dwelling shall provide a 3-car garage. Garage conversions shall be prohibited. 31. New or revised floor plans/elevations to reflect compliance with the development standards shall be subject to staff review and approval. 32. Proposals to enhance all rear elevations shall be submitted for staff review and approval. 33. A landscape and irrigation plan for front yard landscaping and paving shall be submitted for review and approval. The City Landscape Architect shall have the discretion to increase the extent and approve the design and materials for enhanced paving, and to require special measures to accommodate additional trees within the project. 34. The 6' high perimeter wall along "E" Street and Bonita Road shall be solid masonry and have pilasters at 25 ft. on center. The development standards shall contain a prohibition against any modifications, additions or supplements to the perimeter wall. 35. The development standards and restrictions, including approved patio designs, shall be subject to staff review and approval and shall be recorded for each lot concurrently with the final map. C. DISCUSSION The site is a vacant, 5-acre triangular-shaped parcel bound by "E" Street on the northeast, Bonita Road on the south, and a largely unimproved segment of Hill top Drive on the west. The property slopes from northwest to southeast--at the same grade as Bonita Road, and depressed below the level of "E" Street. The site contains a mature grove of eucalyptus trees at the steepest, northwesterly corner of the parcel. The property is zoned R-l-7 and designated Medium Density Residential (4-12 du/ac) on the General Plan. The General Plan Update shows the property as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac). Both Plans designate "£" Street as a City "Gateway" subject to special attention and treatment to preserve and enhance the scenic quality of the site from the street. The areas to the south and west are also zoned R-l-7 and developed with single family dwellings. The area to the north and east is zoned R-3-P-16/19 and developed with Multiple family units. The existing R-l-7 zone calls for an average lot size of 7,000 sq. ft., with no more than 20% of the lots at between 6-7,000 sq. ft. and no more than 10% of the lots at between 5-6,000 sq. ft. Lots of 6,000 sq. ft. or greater are subject to yards of 15 ft. in the front, 20 ft. in the rear, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 6 and 3 ft. and 10 ft. on the sides. The maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) are the same for all lots at 0.40 and 0.45, respectively. The standards for the proposed R-l-5 zone call for a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. with yards of 15 ft. in the front, 15 ft. in the rear and 6 ft. and 5 ft. on the sides. These yards would also apply to the 10% 5,000 sq. ft. lots allowed in the ~-1-7 zone. Lot coverage and FAP remain at 0.40 and 0.45. The "P" Precise Plan modifying district allows for deviation from these standards. The project involves 21 single-family lots served by a double cul-de-sac with access off Bonita Road. The proposal includes a 0.37-acre open space easement encompassing the grove of eucalyptus trees at the northwest corner of the property, plus five dedicated open space lots totalling 0.16 acres; including two landscape pockets each along "E" Street and Bonita Road, and 4,100 sq. ft. of landscaping at the intersection of these two streets. The average lot size is 7,430 sq. ft., with a minimum of 5,040 sq. ft. and a maximum of 22,965 Ithe lot which includes the open space easement~. Of the 21 lots, seven are 7,000 sq. ft. or greater, five are between 6-7,000 sq. ft. and nine are between 5-6,000 sq. ft. The project features two 2-story floor plans of 3,175 sq.ft, and 3,475 sq. ft., resulting in FAR'$ which vary from 0.09 to 0.69. With the exception of one lot with a coverage of 0.41, all of the lots are consistent with the coverage, height and setback standards of the R-l-5 zone. Architecturally, the dwellings feature mission tile roofs and stucco exteriors. Varied roof and wall planes, as well as multi-paned windows, have been used to add interest to the exteriors, with greater detail design elements in the front as opposed to the rear elevations. Each of the dwellings has a 3-car garage with setbacks adequate to accommodate driveway parking. The two short cul-de-sacs limit on-street parking to about 12 spaces within the project and an additional 9 spaces on Bonita Road. The precise plan submittal includes a landscape concept and fencing program. The plan calls for perimeter landscaping backed by a stucco wall with pilasters along "E" Street and Bonita Road, and wood fencing with pilasters along the westerly property line. Clay tile screens within the wall are used at the project entry and at the intersection, which would also feature a raised planter area. Special paving would be used on selected driveways within the project, and frontyard landscaping would be installed by the developer. The developer has proposed the following street names for the project: Street A: Richmond Park Court Street B: Richmond Park Place City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 7 D. ANALYSIS The irregular shape of the site, its location between a major and collector street, and its relationship to multiple-family to the northeast and single-family to the south and west, are all factors which to staff would favor the development of an attached product--near the upper end of the low-medium range of 3-6 du/ac, resulting in a maximum yield of approximately 30 units. An earlier proposal to redesignate and rezone the site for 96 High Density multiple-family units generated a great deal of neighborhood opposition to developing the property with anything other than detached, single family dwellings consistent with the balance of the neighborhood to the south and west. The present proposal for R-1-5-P zoning appears to be much more consistent with the desires of the surrounding residents in terms of dwelling type and overall density, while recognizing the constraints on lot size in serving a small irregularly-shaped parcel with public streets and a single access point. As noted above, the average lot size is over 7,400 sq. ft. resulting in an overall density of 4.2 du/ac, which is consistent with R-l-7 development. The necessity for two cul-de-sacs in such a confined area, however, prevents the distribution of the square footage among the lots in a manner which meets the minimum lot size requirements of that zone. The street and lot pattern also raise issues with regard to on-street parking, the interior and exterior street scene and FAR's. The several narrow lot frontages in and around the cul-de-sacs will limit on-street parking to approximately one space per unit, including the spaces available on Bonita Road. The provision of 3-car garages should free-up on-street spaces that would normally be occupied by resident vehicles in a 2-car garage development, but the wider garages and a predominance of driveway pavement will result in a less than ideal interior street scene. It appears that the deletion of two lots would allow the project to comply with the standards of the R-l-7 zone, and would also improve the on-street parking ratio and street scene. Staff considered including this in the recommendation, but concluded, on-balance, that the on-street parking ratio is adequate, and that the proposed yield is acceptable given the relation to the size of the project, required improvements, and the fact that the acceptance of the interior street scene will largely be a matter of choice for the residents purchasing the homes. The use of enhanced paving, the quality of the front elevations, and a coordinated developer-installed frontyard landscape program will also improve the interior street scene. We have recommended that the full extent and details of the paving and frontyard landscaping program be left to the discretion of the City Landscape Architect. This would include the approval of paving materials and treatments and the extent of the paving program, as well as special measures to accommodate additional trees in close proximity to paved areas. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 8 The FAR's proposed for three lots far exceed the P-1 standard or even those approved for recent planned communities which provide common areas and facilities to compensate for reduced lot sizes. As opposed to the planned communities which use total FAR and setbacks without a limitation on lot coverage, however, the Park Bonita project maintains private yard space by lot coverages generally well under the R-1 lot coverage standard of 0.40 (please see attached lot summary). Also, the increased bulk is mitigated to some degree by the fact that the dwellings back on to the streets rather than other dwellings. For these reasons, we have recommended an increase in FAR as follows: Lot Size Coverage FAR 7,000 sq. ft. 0.40 0.50 6-7,000 sq. ft. 0.40 0.55 5,6,000 sq. ft. 0.40 0.60 These allowances are consistent with those approved for smaller lots in planned communities, and more restrictive with regard to lot coverage. They would effect 3 of the 21 lots, and would require reductions to the existing floor plans or perhaps the introduction of an alternate plan for those lots. The reduction should not occur in the 3-car garages, which are significant to the overall parking program. As noted, the external street scene as viewed from "E" Street and Bonita Road will consist of a decorative wall fronted with landscaping and the rear elevations of the dwellings. In addition to the landscape pockets and intersection treatment, the depth of landscaping fronting the wall should be no less than 6 ft., with these areas as well as the eucalyptus grove under the jurisdiction of an open space maintenance district. Further recommendations with regard to the perimeter treatment include expanding the depth of landscaping at the rear of lot 17 to a minimum of 15 ft., the use of a solid masonry wall with pilasters at no more than 25 ft. on center, and further enhancement of the rear dwelling elevations subject to staff review and approval. Because of the significance of the rear elevations, a condition has been recommended which would prohibit any additions other than patio covers conforming to one or more pre-approved designs. Open patio covers of 300 sq. ft. or less would be exempt from the FAR and coverage limitations. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Park Bonita, Chula Vista Tract 89-11, is found to be in conformance with the elements of the 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, with the exception of FAR's which are proposed for adjustment under the "P" Precise Plan modifying district. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 9 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements--streets, sewers, etc. -- which have or will be designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The project density of 4.2 du/ac is consistent with the 4-12 du/ac shown on the existing General Plan and the 3-6 du/ac proposed in the General Plan Update. b. Circulation The project will be served by public streets within the project, and a single access point onto Bonita ~oad in order to minimize adverse traffic impacts. c. Housing The project will provide single-family detached housing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood to the south and west. d. Conservation An existing grove of eucalyptus trees shall be retained in a permanent open space reservation. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to approval of a final map. More than one-half acre will be retained as permanent open space. f. Seismic Safety - There are no known faults within the immediate vicinity of the site. g. Safety - The site is within the threshold standards with regard to response time for fire and police. h. Noise A noise wall will be required along "E" Street and construction techniques will be used to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB-A. i. Scenic Highway A landscape strip and decorative wall, along with the eucalyptus grove shall be maintained along the "E" Street Gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - "E" Street is a designated bike route and shall be improved to accommodate a bicycle lane. k. Public Buildings - The project shall be subject to RCT fees at issuance of building permits. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 6446P : , FLOWER ST. ROSEBANK , SUBJECT SIT E BONITA ROA0 I ' DAVI DSON ST. SANOALW( MONTEBf fSTAFFORD GARDNER~ Exhibit PCZ-89-G, PCS-89-11, and P-89-2: Rezone from R-1 to x/~ R-1-5, and 21 lot single family subdivision NO R TH ,ii PARK BONITA LOT COVERAGE/FLOOR AREA RATIO Lot Number Lot size Plan Coverage F.A.R. I 6,372 2 33 .55 2 5,852 2 35 .59 3 5,927 I 33 .54 4 5,960 1 33 .53 5 6,262 2 33 .55 6 7,545 i 26 .42 7 8,978 1 22 .35 8 22,965 2 .09 .15 8 (less easement) 6,721 2 31 .52 9 8,655 2 24 .40 10 6,048 1 32 .52 11 5,307 1 37 .60 12 7,589 2 27 .46 13 5,741 1 34 .55 14 6,274 2 33 .55 15 6,950 1 30 .46 16 7,630 2 27 .46 17 ll,Oll 2 .18 .32 18 5,828 1 .33 .54 19 5,034 2 .41 .69 20 5,040 1 .39 .63 21 5,048 1 .38 .63 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor Plan 1 1,942 1,233 3,175 Plan 2 2,077 1,398 3,475 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Park Bonita PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest of "E" Street and Bonita Road Intersection PROJECT APPLICANT: Stafford Gardner Development Co. 1497 Jayken Way Suite B Chula Vista, California 92011 CASE NO: IS-89-69 A. The 4.99 acre project site slopes from northwest to southeast, with elevations ranging from 100 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the western portion of the site to approximately 42 feet above MSL on the northeast. The property is approximately 20 feet lower than the roadbed of "E" Street which runs along the northwestern perimeter of the proposed project site. Much of the site has previously been graded and altered by road construction and soil dumping. Average natural slope is approximately 8%; maximum natural slope is approximately 50% on the northwestern 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. The Huerhuero and Salinas soil series are represented on the project site. These soils exhibit a clay loam texture and have a moderate to severe expansive potential. Natural vegetation on-site consists of a grove of approximately 110 eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) on the northwestern corner of the property, one large pepper tree (Schinus molle) in the center of the property, and some plant cover of species common to disturbed areas. Past use of the site was for agricultural purposes and is a remnant of a larger agricultural holding which occupied the lands of the Sweetwater River flood plain. A functional 10 inch well casing with pump and motor is located in the central portion of the site. This well is apparently completed into an aquifer associated with the Sweetwater River. The site is currently vacant, with uses limited to passive open space functions. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project include a multi-family residential apartment development across "E" Street to the north; single-family residential to the south across Bonita Road; single-family residential and commercial across Bonita Road to the east; and single-family residential to the west along Hilltop Drive. General Plan designations surrounding the project site are high density residential to the north; medium and low density residential to the south; low and high density residential and retail commercial to the east; and medium density residential to the west. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section CHULA VISI'A The project site is not located adjacent to any scenic routes. However, it is adjacent to a "gateway" to Chula Vista, as designated by the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan. The property is located on an ancient terrace on the Sweetwater River and is within the lO0-year flood plain. The lO0-year flood elevation is 45.2 feet above MSL. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of a subdivision of the 4.99 acre parcel into 21 separate building lots with attendant access. As designed, access would be gained to the project site off of Bonita Road. Site grading necessary to develop the project site includes approximately 6000 cubic yards of cut and 24,000 cubic yards of fill material. The maximum cut will be 15 feet although the project average is only 0.7 feet. Average fill depths are 6 feet with a maximum of 12 feet. The 21 residential lots will be developed for single family residences with the exception of approximately .42 acres which will be retained as natural open space. Hook-up to utilities will require the extension of gas, tie-in to sewer and water from the "E" Street/Bonita Road intersection. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Current zoning for the project site is R-l-7. This zone is intended for single-family residential uses and allows for the construction of one single-family dwelling on any lot. This may include factory-built home/mobile home on any lot subject to some restrictions. The minimum lot size in the R-l-7 zone is 7,000 square feet which is considered to be the basic or standard lot size within the City. Some exceptions are provided for reducing lot sizes on a portion of the lots in a subdivision so long as the average lot size is maintained at 7,000 square feet. Building heights are restricted to 25 feet or two and a half stories, which ever is less and not more than 40 pqrcent of the lot area may be covered by buildings on the site. The project applicant is requesting a zone change to R-l-5 classification. This zone would allow a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with a (P) Precise plan modifying district. This is applicable due to the unusual location of the project site as an island between "E" Street, Hilltop Avenue, and Bonita Road. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The proposed Park Bonita development is within 1 mile of the nearest fire station, Station 1, located at 447 "F" Street. Response times for emergency calls would be 3 minutes, which is less than the required 7 minutes necessary to meet Threshold Standards. This area also would enjoy response from Station 2 located a 80 E. "J" Street, and automatic aid response from both Bonita and National City units. -2- -- city of chule vista planning department ~ environmental review leCtion CHULA VISTA 2. Police The City of Chula Vista Police Department was contacted and indicated that service could be provided for the proposed development. 3. Traffic The proposed project would impact area streets with the addition of approximately 210 average daily trips. The level of service at area intersections and roadways would not be significantly reduced. Access to the proposed project would be off of Bonita Road, west of the intersection with "E" Street. 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 The far eastern edge of the proposed project lies within the 100 year flood plane of the Sweetwater River. Site grading will raise the building sites to above the 100 year flood level. The applicant's engineer has performed a preliminary drainage study to identify possible impacts to existing storm drain facilities. This study has indicated that the existing facilities are adequate to carry increased runoff from the project as a result of housing development. A more detailed site drainage study will be performed by the applicant's engineer prior to project approval. If impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures must be implemented prior building permit issuance. 6. Sewer The desired sewer service'connection for the project would he through a connection with an 8 inch sewer main located at the intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road. Preliminary studies have shown that existing sewage flows through this main are currently at capacity. An alternative connection with the sewer system will be provided prior to building permit issuance. 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. Some of the residences may require water main extensions for this service. -3- city of chula vista planning department (:]lYO~ environmental review leCtlon CHULA VISTA 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 Current Students ~enerated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Rosebank* 654 600 13 Jr. High Hilltop** 1508 1386 6 Sr. High Hilltop 1478 1388 4 * Rosebank Elementary School will have new portable classrooms in the fall. 31 students are currently being bussed to other area schools. In the fall, the school board is expected to adopt a new policy of keeping their students at their "home" schools rather than bussing them out. This will have an impact on schools on the west side of the City. ** Student attendance in excess of current capacity are in portable classrooms. Prior to the issuance of building permits, school impact fees must be paid or Mello Roos Community Facilities District financing must be implemented. E. Identification of Environmental Effects Hazardous Chemicals/Waste. Hazardous waste contamination was identified on the proposed project site as a possible remnant of smudge pots used for orange orchard frost protectign. This conditions was inspected by the County Health Services Department and found to be a spill of diesel fuel from an unidentified source. Site remediation followed and consisted of removal of the affected soils through a contract with GEOCON, Inc. The county Health Services Department reviewed the site remediation report and discussed the findings with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both agencies determined that the site has been adequately mitigated and found that, "Based on current requirements and policies, no further action is indicated at this time". A copy of this letter is included as Attachment "A". Sewage. In a letter to the City of Chula V~sta, concern for sewage contamination was noted, stating that effluent from septic systems employed on the surrounding properties was collecting on the proposed project site, creating a situation un-fit for family occupation. The county heal th department was contacted for a historic perspective of -4- ~ city of Chula vista planning department ¢11Y O~ ~ environmental review lection. CHUIAVISTA septic systems occurring in the area. County records show one septic system failure in 1979, occurring across Bonita Road from the proposed project site at 75 Bonita Road. Addressing this issue, the applicant was required to obtain a water analysis for Fecal Coliform bacteria from the well found on site. The results of this analysis were negative for Fecal Coliform bacteria. The Fecal Coliform analysis is included as Attachment Biology. As discussed in the Project Setting, vegetation on the site consists of approximately 100 eucalyptus trees IEucalyptus sp.) found in the northwestern corner and a large Pepper Tree ISchinus molle) found near the center of the site. The remainder of the site is in a hiRhly disturbed state and is occupied by successional/weedy species. Development of the site as indicated would require the removal of the Pepper Tree, however the eucalyptus grove would be retained within a natural open space easement. Noise. The proposed Park Bonita development would be impacted by traffic generated noise from "E" Street located adjacent to and north of the project site. Vehicular traffic on interstate 805 located over 800 feet east of the project site also contributes to the noise levels on the site. The City of Chula vista, Noise Element to the General Plan recommends that residential development be constructed within an exterior noise environment of 65 dB-A Ldn or less. The Draft EIR for the General Plan update for the City of Chula Vista indicates that the noise contour (as measured at 68 feet from centerline) on Bonita Road at "E" Street is 70 dB-A CNEL. Given the right-of-way on "E" Street and the slope of the property, this could be in the area where homes will be located. . . A 5 foot high noise wall will be required along "E" Street adjacent to the proposed project. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permits for residential units, the applicant will be required to have a noise reading taken with the noise wall in place. Normal construction measures are expected to reduce the interior noise by up to 20 dB-A. Following the results of the n~ise reading and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to use any additional construction techniques that will reduce the noise level to an acceptable 45 dB-A. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects Noise levels have been found to be above the City of Chula standards for residential construction. In order to mitigate a potentially significant noise impact, and in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, it is required that an Acoustician certified with the City of Chula Vista, take a noise reading following the construction of a noise barrier wall and prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. Prior to occupancy, noise level readings will again be required to assure that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB-A or lower. -5- city of chula vista planning department CIWOF environmental review section (:HULA VISTA Other possible significant impacts have been mitigated by site design. All threshold standards have been met. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact The removal of the pepper tree would not be significant as this is an introduced common species. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner 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 Ann Patton, BHA Associates, Inc. 2. City of Chula vista - Zoning Ordinance City of Chula Vista - Threshold Standards City of Chula Vista - Park Bonita Environmental Initial Study Plaza Bonita Apartments Final EIR (unpublished) 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. ENVIRO~ REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. #/88) WPC 6424P -6- city of chula vista planning department environmental review section. CHULA VISTA ATTACHMENT "A" OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES P. O. BOX 85261 SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-5261 (619) 338-2211 June 5, 1989 Will D. and Karen K. Gardner, John Gardner 1497 Jay Ken Way, Suite B Chula Vista, CA 92011 Dear Will, John and Karen Gardner: RE: SOIL CONTAMINATION ON APB 570-02-09 AND 24 E STREET AND BONITA ROAD, CHULA VISTA, CA HMI~D FILE #H26518 The site remediation report submitted to this Department by Geocon Environmental summarizing the site characterization and mitigation activities at the above referenced location has been reviewed. This report has also been discussed with staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB concurs with the determination of this Department that this site has been adequately mitigated. Base'd on current requirements and policies, no further action is indicated at this time. Please be advised that if the current use of the site changes, additional site characterization and mitigation activity may be required. As the property owner, it is your responsibility to notify this Department prior to any such changes. Thank you for your efforts in resolving this matter. Contact the Hazardous Materials Management Division at 619) 33~-2222, if you require any additional assistance. Sincerely, GARY R. STEPHANY, Deputy Director Environmental Health Services GRS:jw cc: Jim Munch-RWQCB Larry Bodenhamer-HM1~D Mike Nally-Geocon Ann Patton-BHA Planning & Engineering ATTACHMENT "B" EnvironmenLal Engineering Laboratory 3538 Haocock Street San i}iego~ CA 92110 (619) 298-6131 MORRI SON DRILLING ~'.0. BOX 117 ALPINE , CA 92001 Customer ~t~ 603 Sample ~I 890505162 PJeYerence : BONITA RD. 5. FLOWER Received : 05/18/89 iO:00AM P.O. ~ Comment : RETEST Test Run: Result.: Cell-form, To'tai ,'.P) <2.2 Chlorine 24 Hour Presumptive 0 48 Hour F'resumptive 48 Hour Con¥irmed MAY ,.: Coliform resul [;s are in MPN/100 ml Repor'~ed L' ) Date FOR OFFICE USE INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE BARK BONI?A 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) N~r*~ nf "~" ~q=r~et and Bonita Road intersectiQn, Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 569-070-53: 570~20-~9. 57~-13~-~ 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 21 Si_nqle Family Dg~ched Units on 4.99 acres trainqular in shade with a qross densitv of 4.2 DU/AC. 4. Name of Appl icant Stafford Gardner Develolsenent Address 1497 Jayken Way Suite B Phone L~ City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92011 5. Name of Preparer/Agent BHA, Inc. Planninq and Enqineerinq Address 1615 Murray Canyon Road Suite 910 Phone (619) 298-8861 City San Diego State CA Zip 92108 Relation to Applicant Agent - (planninq and enqineerinq) consultants 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision x Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning x Tentative Subd. Map --Annexation Precise Plan x Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit- Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location M,ap , ,, 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 EN 2 (Rev. 12/821 - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1.Land Area: sq. footage 217,364 or acreage 4.99 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 x Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 21 Units - 2 story not to exceect 30' c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 11 4 bedrooms 10 Total units 21 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 4.2 DU/AC e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 5.2 DU/AC f. Estimated project population 53 g. Estimated sale or rental price range $225,000 to $250,000 h. Square footage of floor area(s) 2,024 a~ 2,058 i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 31% to 40% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 3 car garages k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 19% 3. Complete this sec }n if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type/s) of b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construc ed in the structure d. Describe major access to~the structures and the orientation to adjoining pro es and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces ided f. fsti~ated number of employees per , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) sis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated ram of servi~e area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of ~]ons not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior li~ 4. If project is other than resid~ commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provide~. g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. Standard emissions associated with construction and automobile traffic. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated ¥e$ IIf yes, complete.the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yardi of earth will be excavated? 6000 b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 24,000 c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 4.6 AC d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 15' Average depth of cut .?, Maximum depth of fill 12' Average depth of fill 6' - 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.) All r~ir~rn~nt~ of the city of .Cb,,l~ \M'~m ~m~ qf~tm nf Califnrnlm TTTT.~ 24 re~ire~nents, 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project Isq. ft. or acres).1R:?~Q .qcL F~-. will remaiq natural as part o£ lots ?&8. 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. ~Tnal oon~t~uction jobs, 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?. 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, amd sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle faci'lities. ~nnifa Rn~ improvement O~ project side, extension of qas, Tie-in to -~r and wafer at "E" Street and Bonita Road D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No- (in p~oces$ (If yes, please attach) will be submitted when completed) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No - (in process will (If yes, please attach) will be submitted when ccmpleted) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? No (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Storm drain to drain infm "~" 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? Normal noise durino constn~etion 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? No. Except Eucalyptus qrove in North west corner, b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 50 to 1OO n~calv~tus in Northwest corner of the site, 5" diameter all will remain on ~ite. 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? Yes. The contaminated soil has been removed and clean soil replaced - this work was supervised by GEOCON Enqineering and a report is on file at the County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Division.. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Vacant b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Eucalyptus Grove Apartment - two story apartments over~ carports owned by applicant SouthSinqle family detached housinq East Two story apa~-~ments, "E" Street and Sinql~ F~n~ly West Two Story sinqle familV residential area 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? {If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. PARK BONITA "E" STREET PARK BONITA "E" STREET PARK BONITA " E" STREET TYPICAL "E "STREET SCREENING - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION W. DOnald Gardner ~ or Stafford GArdner DeveloD~ent .~/owner i0 e~c~o~ ~ I,/ C~arles E. Graff [/ or B.H.A., INC. Planning & Engineering / Consultant or Agent* I Senior Planner HERESY 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- Case No. IS-89-69 CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North R-3-P-lO South R-1 East R-3-P-19 West R-1 Does the project conform to the current zoning? No, the applicant h~ applied for ~ rezone. 2. General Plan land use Uesignation on site: Medium Density Residential (4-12 DU/Arce) North Medium Density Residential South , ,, East West Low Denisty Residential Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes Is the project area designated for conserva~io~ or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? No Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ Not to a senic rate {If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) but to a Gateway - please see- pq. 53-60 in EIR-87-4 How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as sho~.~n in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? 0 What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? 17.2 How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? /2AC/lO00 pop.) Less than 1 acre Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? IIf so, describe in detail.) No * The current General Plan-Scenic Rates Element designates "E" Street as a Gateway from First Avenue and "E" continuing east on Bonita Road. - g - 3. ~chools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Rosebank 654 600 12.6 or 13 Jr. High Hilltop **1508 1506 6 Sr. High Hilltop 1478 1508 4 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.) PI~ ~pp pg. ~-60 in FTR-~7-4 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) 26,817 Kwh/month 321,804 Kwh/yr. Natural Gas (per year) ~ e)ectrlc - IZb,UUU Kwh/lyf. Water {per day) 8954.4 q per day 6. Remarks: May 2, 1989 'Director o~ Planning or Representative bate * Rosebank - will getting a new portable in the fall. 31 students are being bused out currently. ** These extra student are in portables ase .o. G. ~NGINEERING DEPART~IENT 1. .Drainage b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing f)~ding~hazamds? c. Will the project create any ;flooding hazards? ~ ~'~'~"~ d. What is the location and description o( existing on-site drainage facilities? ~d~/~ ~ ey Are they adequate to serve ~he project? f. What is the location and descriptionof existing off-sit drainage facilities? ~ m r ~ Y g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ 2. Transportation / a. ~at roads, provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. ' ~ +?'m '~,'~ /~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~f not, explain br~ef]y. 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 necessar act Case No. 3. G~eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault ha,zards? Liquefaction?~ d~i~r?/~ b.Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to e?luate the project? ~o~ ~=~ /~iY a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil condit' site? ~ ~gx ~~ ~ ~, ~]-~1 ~o~h~ojec~/ c. Is a soils report necessary, :~- -'L:: -/xc 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 im act~n t ' are significant enouqh to ~ ~*~ - · p .g .he s~te tha~ of the a~D]icant~ ~ . ~--,~y that ~ no~s~ana~ys~s be required Case No. 7. _Air 0uality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ~ (per day) ~actor Pollution co x 18.3 Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 = NOx ~N02) " X 20.0 Particulates " = Sulfur ~ ~ 1.5 = ,, x .78 : / 8. ~e Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Nhat is the location and Size of existing sewer lines on , ' to the site~ ~ ~:~/_ ~ ~, ~x _ , Rr adjacent . they adequate to serve the proposed project~ -. 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significan~ impact on the environment, please ~dentify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse ~mpact. (]nclude any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public Street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~ ~/~/z~,~x,~d W go~/~ /~. City En~neervor Representative Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT . I. 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 o'f fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment or personnel? y~/ · ~ire shal Date / / -13(a)- Case No./__q-.-~,~. 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 ~') ~v-~._. Community parks_ ~_x~c~=9_~ (°r~.~ 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increas~?_~ Neighborhood ~ _.~_~ ~L I'f/ l~.~-----. .- ~L~<:~.O~ ,3/ Community parks__ _ ~- ~' u O =Z~ '~_~_~ 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds ~ .... ~ established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative L CHUI,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST"J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN IND~IDUAL OF ~ BOARD OF EOUCA~ON ~ ~ . ~ J~EPH D. CUMMINS, Ph.D. P/,I~ ~ PATfllCK ~ JUDO ~DY~HULENBERG F~NK~NT[~ Hay 15, 1989 ~PERI~ENDE~ ROBERT J. ~^~o. ~AY ~ ~ 1989 Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE:Case No: IS-89-69 Stafford Gardner ~velopment 21SFD South of E St. & North of Bonita ~. Dear Mr. Reid: On April 7, 1989, I responded to the City of Chula Vista's Initial Study on the above project. The project site is in the attendance area of a school (Rosebank) which is currently overcrowded and participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District was suggested as an alternate form of financing school facilities. Based upon further consideration and the nunmber of dwelling units involved, the District will accept pa~ent of developer fees as mitigation for the project's impact on Rosebank School. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp CHUI,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL ISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA92010 * 619425-9600 BOARD OF EDUCA~ON JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, PhD. SHARON GILES PATRICK K JUDD ~DY SCH~BERG F~NK ~TA~NTINO April 7, 1989 ROBE~ J. McCARTHY, Ec~D. Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No: IS-89-69 Project Applicant: Stafford Gardner Development Project Location: South of "E" Street & North of Bonita Road Project Description: 21SFD on 4.99 acres 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 to serve new growth. Students are being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation. Busing is also utilized to achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is in the Rosebank School attendance area. The current developer fee of 67~ per square foot of habitable living space may be inadequate to provide facilities for this development. The District would certainly be willing to discuss the possibility of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District as an alternate form of financing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 7. Consideration of Mitigation Monitorin9 and Reportin~ Pro~ram for Park Bonita Attached are copies of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for Park Bonita. The Program will require adoption only if the Commission approves the project. RECOMMENDATIN: Adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program following approval of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PARK BONITA SUBDIVISION CHULA VISTA (IS-89-69) Prepared for: City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Prepared by: Zucker Systems Sorrento Mesa Design Center 9909 Huennekens Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2928 July 6, 1989 INTRODUCTION Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that public agencies "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance with during project implementation". This Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Program booklet summarizes the environmental impacts and the recommended mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration For The Park Bonita Housing Development and includes a mitigation reporting and monitoring program. The mitigation monitoring program is designed to insure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and insure mitigation measures are implemented, and identifies how the City of Chula Vista; will monitor mitigation measures and report the findings of such monitoring. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS M-1 A. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS M-1 B. UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS M-1 C. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS M-1 II. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES M-2 III. PROPOSED MITIGATION REPORTING AND M-2 MONITORING PROGRAM I. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS A. Less Than Significant Impacts In accordance with the evaluation provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IIS-89-69), the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts concerning the following issues: 1. The Maintenance of the City's Adopted Growth Management Threshold Standards for the following services: o Fire/Emergency Medical Service; o Police; o Parks and Recreation; o Sewer; o Schools; and o Water. It has not yet been resolved whether the development of the project would affect the maintenance of the Growth Management Threshold Standards for drainage. A preliminary drainage study was completed by the applicant's engineer and indicated that the existing drainage facilities are adequate to carry increased runoff from the project area as a result of housing development. A more detailed site drainage study will be performed by the applicant's engineer prior to project approval. B. Unavoidable Impacts No unavoidable impacts have been identified. C. Significant Environmental Impacts Noise The proposed Park Bonita is located adjacent to "E" Street which also serves as the norther project boundary. Noise studies for the City of Chula Vista, General Plan update found traffic generated noise levels of 70 dB-A Ldn, 68 feet from the centerline of "E" Street. The Noise Element to the City of Chula Vista General Plan recommends that residential development be constructed within an exterior noise environment of 65 dB-A or less. M-1 II. RECOMME~JDED MITIGATION MEASURES Noise To mitigate the adverse noise level impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended to be included in the approval of the project: 1. Construct a 5 foot high noise attenuation wall along the property frontage with "E" Street. 2. After construction of the noise attenuation wall and prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to have an Acoustician certified by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department document existing noise levels. 3. Prior to occupancy, noise levels on the interior of the residential units must be observed by an acoustician acceptable to the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. Interior noise levels may not exceed 45 dB-A. III. PROPOSED MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM The following identifies a step by step process which the City of Chula Vista will utilize to monitor and report on the implementation of mitigation measures. 1. All mitigation measures shall become conditions of a project approval and will identify when the condition (mitigation) shall be implemented (i.e., prior to permit issuance, prior to recordation, during project construction, before occupancy, or after occupancy). 2. Project approvals shall be by resolution or Notice of Decision (NOD) identifying all conditions including a special section identifying all mitigation measures as conditions. Said resolution shall be routed to all City departments and affected agencies. 3. Upon application for implementation permits le.§., grading, building, encroachment, utility connections, etc.), the resolution of approval or NOD including the mitigation measures shall be attached to the construction plans for both in-house (inspector) use and on-site Icontractor) plans. 4. Should project implementation permits require monitoring during construction, the mitigation measures shall be identified on the construction plans for the inspector and the contractor. 5. Prior to issuance of any implementation permits, the resolution of approval shall be reviewed to determine if any conditions (mitigation measures) require implementation. This review shall be performed by the Planning Department. Staff will insure that such conditions have been complied with prior to the issuance of the permits. M-2 6. Prior to staff signing off on City forms reporting that the permit is completed, the conditions (mitigation measures) shall be reviewed by staff to insure compliance. 7. Prior to project occupancy or completion being approved by the City, all City Departments shall sign off on the occupancy card. Each Department shall insure compliance of the conditions Imitigation measures) that relate to that Department. The Planning Department shall insure that the mitigation measures have been met, including those measures that may require other agency input and comment/acceptance prior to signing off on the occupancy card. 8. Any conditions (mitigation measures) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the Planning Department. The Planning Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and or pay for City related projects that have conditions reflecting mitigation measures will not have to post any deposits. Compliance of the mitigation measures shall be insured by the Planning Department and other agencies, if applicable. In those instances requiring long term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to determine if the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's mitigation monitoring program and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All monitoring and reporting documentation shall be maintained in the primary project file with the Planning ~epartment having the original authority for processing the project, and a copy of the monitoring and reporting documentation shall be transmitted to the agency requiring the mitigation. 10. Although various City departments will be involved with insuring compliance with mitigation measures, the Planning Department will review all mitigation measures prior to granting occupancy to double check compliance. ll. Overall monitoring and reporting on City-wide impacts and related mitigation measures shall be accomplished by the following: a. Annual review of the traffic, drainage, and parks and recreation development fees. The purpose of the annual review with the City Council is to insure that the development fees are adequate and being implemented. b. Annual review and evaluation of implementation of the General Plan by the Planning Commission reporting to the City Council. This evaluation will also review the mitigation measures established in the General Plan and the City's ability to effectively implement the environmental goals and policies of the Plan. c. On-going implementation of the General Plan goals and policies to insure project consistency and implementation of such goals and policies. d. Annual review and evaluation of the Implementation Plan of the General Plan by the Planning Commission reporting to the City Council. M-5 WPC 6455P City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of July 12, 1989 7. Consideration of Miti§ation Monitorin§ and Reportin§ Program for Park Bonita Attached are copies of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for Park Bonita. The Program will require adoption only if the Commission approves the project. RECOMMENDATIN: Adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program following approval of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PARK BONITA SUBDIVISION CHULA VISTA (IS-89-69) Prepared for: City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Prepared by: Zucker Systems Sorrento Mesa Design Center 9909 Huennekens Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2928 July 6, 1989 INTRODUCTION Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that public agencies "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance with during project implementation". This Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Program booklet summarizes the environmental impacts and the recommended mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration For The Park Bonita Housing Development and includes a mitigation reporting and monitoring program. The mitigation monitoring program is designed to insure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and insure mitigation measures are implemented, and identifies how the City of Chula Vista; will monitor mitigation measures and report the findings of such monitoring. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS M-1 A. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS M-1 B. UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS M-1 C. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS M-1 II. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES M-2 III. PROPOSED MITIGATION REPORTING AND M-2 MONITORING PROGRAM I. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS A. Less Than Significant Impacts In accordance with the evaluation provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IIS-89-69), the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts concerning the following issues: 1. The Maintenance of the City's Adopted Growth Management Threshold Standards for the following services: o Fire/Emergency Medical Service; o Police; o Parks and Recreation; o Sewer; o Schools; and o Water. It has not yet been resolved whether the development of the project would affect the maintenance of the Growth Management Threshold Standards for drainage. A preliminary drainage study was completed by the applicant's engineer and indicated that the existing drainage facilities are adequate to carry increased runoff from the project area as a result of housing development. A more detailed site drainage study will be performed by the applicant's engineer prior to project approval. B. Unavoidable Impacts No unavoidable impacts have been identified. C. Significant Environmental Impacts Noise The proposed Park Bonita is located adjacent to "E" Street which also serves as the norther project boundary. Noise studies for the City of Chula Vista, General Plan update found traffic generated noise levels of 70 dB-A Ldn, 68 feet from the centerline of "E" Street. The Noise Element to the City of Chula Vista General Plan recommends that residential development be constructed within an exterior noise environment of 65 dB-A or less. M-1 II. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Noise To mitigate the adverse noise level impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended to be included in the approval of the project: 1. Construct a 5 foot high noise attenuation wall along the property frontage with "E" Street. 2. After construction of the noise attenuation wall and prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to have an Acoustician certified by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department document existing noise levels. 3. Prior to occupancy, noise levels on the interior of the residential units must be observed by an acoustician acceptable to the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. Interior noise levels may not exceed 45 dB-A. III. PROPOSED MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM The following identifies a step by step process which the City of Chula Vista will utilize to monitor and report on the implementation of mitigation measures. 1. All mitigation measures shall become conditions of a project approval and will identify when the condition (mitigation) shall be implemented (i.e., prior to permit issuance, prior to recordation, during project construction, before occupancy, or after occupancy). 2. Project approvals shall be by resolution or Notice of Decision (NOD) identifying all conditions including a special section identifying all mitigation measures as conditions. Said resolution shall be routed to all City departments and affected agencies. 3. Upon application for implementation permits (e.g., grading, building, encroachment, utility connections, etc.), the resolution of approval or NOD including the mitigation measures shall be attached to the construction plans for both in-house (inspector) use and on-site (contractor) plans. 4. Should project implementation permits require monitoring during construction, the mitigation measures shall be identified on the construction plans for the inspector and the contractor. 5. Prior to issuance of any implementation permits, the resolution of approval shall be reviewed to determine if any conditions (mitigation measures) require implementation. This review shall be performed by the Planning Department. Staff will insure that such conditions have been complied with prior to the issuance of the permits. M-2 6. Prior to staff signing off on City forms reporting that the permit is completed, the conditions (mitigation measures) shall be reviewed by staff to insure compliance. 7. Prior to project occupancy or completion being approved by the City, all City Departments shall sign off on the occupancy card. Each Department shall insure compliance of the conditions (mitigation measures) that relate to that Department. The Planning Department shall insure that the mitigation measures have been met, including those measures that may require other agency input and comment/acceptance prior to signing off on the occupancy card. 8. Any conditions (mitigation measures) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the Planning Department. The Planning Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and or pay for City related projects that have conditions reflecting mitigation measures will not have to post any deposits. Compliance of the mitigation measures shall be insured by the Planning Department and other agencies, if applicable. In those instances requiring long term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to determine if the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's mitigation monitoring program and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. All monitoring and reporting documentation shall be maintained in the primary project file with the Planning nepartment having the original authority for processing the project, and a copy of the monitoring and reporting documentation shall be transmitted to the agency requiring the mitigation. 10. Although various City departments will be involved with insuring compliance with mitigation measures, the Planning Department will review all mitigation measures prior to granting occupancy to double check compliance. ll. Overall monitoring and reporting on City-wide impacts and related mitigation measures shall be accomplished by the following: a. Annual review of the traffic, drainage, and parks and recreation development fees. The purpose of the annual review with the City Council is to insure that the development fees are adequate and being implemented. M-4 b. Annual review and evaluation of implementation of the General Plan by the Planning Commission reporting to the City Council. This evaluation will also review the mitigation measures established in the General Plan and the City's ability to effectively implement the environmental goals and policies of the Plan. c. On-going implementation of the General Plan goals and policies to insure project consistency and implementation of such goals and policies. d. Annual review and evaluation of the Implementation Plan of the General Plan by the Planning Commission reporting to the City Council. M-5 WPC 6455P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT APPLICANT'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~ Will Donald Gardner Karen Kaye Gardner John Wheeler Gardner Mary Leu Gardner List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Will Donald Gardner Karen Kay¢ Gardner John Wheeler Gardner Mary Leu Gardner 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. Will Donald Gardner Karen Kaye Gardner John Wheeler Gardner Mary Leu Gardner 3. If any person identified pursuant to (]) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person ser¥ing 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 acti~g~as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.~\\\ ~,~_/~/c~r'' ~----~-~ Signatur6 o~ applicaht/date A-110 Print or tyte'name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 1 8, PUBLIC HEARING: Jerry Olsher appeal from the conditions imposed by the Desiqn Review Committee at 1181 Broadway A. BACKGROUND On June I 1989, the Design Review Committee considered a request from the applicant to approve changes made during construction of a recently completed commercial building located at 1181 Broadway. The changes consisted of: 1. Deleting raised stucco band along the east elevation. 2. Changing the storefront aluminum mullions color from dark bronze to red. 3. Changing the exterior stucco color from ivory to coordinate with the northerly adjacent structure to a pure white color. After hearing staff presentation and applicant's request, the Design Review Committee waived the installation of the stucco band, approve the red aluminum storefront, but denied the applicant's request to change the exterior stucco color. The Committee approved a color modification which included repainting limited portions of the building retaining the building facade and the freestanding sign in the proposed pure white color. The applicant, Mr. Jerry Olsher, filed an appeal on the June 7, 1989 stating his wish to retain the pure white color throughout the building, citing the fact that the white color was well coordinated with the northerly adjacent building which~according to the applicant, exhibits three tones of white. The project is categorically exempt from the environmental class ll(a). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Deny the request. 2. Approve the repainting of the building as approved by the Design Review Committee. C. DISCUSSION The applicant has recently completed a lO,O00 sq. ft. retail commercial building located at ll81 Broadway within the Montgomery community. The existing building is located within the C-36 zone district (general commercial) and is designated as mercantile and office commercial in the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Design Review Committee first considered and approved the construction of the subject project in March of 1988 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 12, 1989 Page 2 subject to some conditions. The project architecture consisted of a flat roof, 22 ft. high commercial building enhanced with a cantilevered mansard roof treatment over the storefront and a mission style parapet at the center forming a converging focal point. The building featured concrete tile roof with exposed rafters to match the northerly adjacent commercial center which features a more pronounced concrete tile mansard roof supported by evenly spaced square columns. The existing building design differs significantly with the new structure architecture. However, the two projects were proposed to be architecturally linked by incorporating matching colors and material as well as joint parking and circulation system. A color and materials sample board submitted by the applicant at that time confirms the aforementioned intention. g. ANALYSIS In staff's opinion, the as-built snow white stucco finish produce a substantial contrast with the northerly adjacent commercial center and deviates substantially from the original intent to link architecturally the two buildings together. In addition, the applicant made no attempt to contact the City to request any change prior to the completion of work. The Design Review Committee attempted to reach a compromise solution by authorizing a less extensive repainting program by adding the approved ivory color only to certain areas of the building. Consequently, reducing the cost incurred, yet softening the glaring white. Based on the above, staff is recommending that the appeal be denied and that the building be repainted as prescribed by the Design Review Committee. WPC 6425P RETAIL CENTER PROJECT LOCATION PRICE CLUB U~pa'~a',~ RETAIL SHOPS OXFORD STREET EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1989 3. DRC-89-39M Revised color scheme for commercial project at 1181 Broadway Assistant Planner Hernandez stated that on March 3, 1988, the Design Review Committee considered and approved a 10,000 sq. ft. retail building to be located at l181Broadway in Chula Vista. The commercial project was intended to have a joint parking circulation arrangement with an existing commercial center located immediately north of 1181 Broadway. It was the intent to blend the two buildings from a design standpoint by using matching exterior finishes and colors. The building at l181Broadway is presently being completed pending completion of certain minor structural and finish items. He pointed out that during final inspection connected by staff was found that the color scheme and the intent to blend the tw~ commercial centers together was not carried out as depicted on the plans. Consequently, the owner was notified and has met with staff to discuss the issues, lie went on to explain it was the opinion of staff that the as-built white stucco with red color storefront mullions produces a high contrast in a color scheme which is not consistent with the northerly commercial center. Staff had recommended that the Committee members visit the site so they could make a decision on the proposed color modification. It was pointed out in samples of the color scheme that was approved by the Committee in March of 1988 which were passed around for further review. Chairman O'Neill stated that in his opinion there was an agreement on the color scheme to be used when the project left the Committee and, therefore, he would like a further explanation as to why the applicant has varied from the approved color scheme. Mr. Jerry Olsher, owner of Music Mart and developer of the site, stated that ne thought the red mullions that he'd used were approved and that the adjacent building is actually three different colors of stucco varying from off-white to light tan, and he tried to make his new building match as close as possible. He also pointed out that he did not want to proceed with certain other changes regarding a required popout at the rear of the building facing the adjacent apartment to the east, because based on his opinion it was not a highly visible area to that property. ~lr. Ken Smith, architect for the project, noted in his opinion the working drawings called for red mullions and the buildings do work together since the adjacent building is actually three color based upon age and overall lack of maintenance. Mr. Hernandez reminded the Committee members that the plans that are stamped and signed by the architect indicate that the plans will be in accordance with the DRC approval. Member Flach stated that in his opinion the building does not compare with the adjacent center and the architecture does not match the adjacent building. ~!ember Gilman stated that the ~hite-on-white stucco stands out in a very pronounced manner. -2- Member Alberti noted that in his opinion the mullions work reasonably well but the stark white is not appropriate. Chairman O'Neill pointed out that the building is somewhat separated from the adjacent center and, therefore, they read as two separate buildings and not necessarily as one project. Member Gilman said the red mullions are not a big issue but the color of the stucco is a concern. In discussing the three items that were not completed in accordance with approved plans, the Committee concluded that the missing popout at the rear of the wall to the east is not a major issue and the color of the mullion is acceptable. It was also noted that either repainting or re-color coating the white stucco to an off-white or ivory would be acceptable. Chairman O'Neill noted that by painting the marquee area as well as the north-facing wall, it could bring the project into closer compliance. MSUC IFlach/Alberti) 5-0 to propose that the north wall, the fascia, and the area in front of the main entry be painted an ivory color to match the existing building to the north. It was noted that the bell tower and the new freestanding sign could remain with the white color. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'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. ,,7. / List the names of al~persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, B d~xCommissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes o~A If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, '~Cl-~T~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any o~her county, city and county, city! municipality, d~strict or other pilitical subdiwsloI, o~ alYe~tilrn~;Oup or.combination acting~s~a unit." ( OTE: Attach add't"ona p g essary /~~._ -~/ . ~ " .,.- / S ig)~at u~of app~cant/date WPC 0701P C~/E~ ~ (Y A-110 Print or ty~e name of applicant