The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/08/23 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 23, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-5M: Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 4.29 acre area, located on the southerly side of Oxford Street, between Fourth Avenue and the Lauderbach Park and Community Center, from "Parks and Open Space" and "Special Study Area" to "Low/ Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)" on the plan diagram of the said Montgomery Specific Plan 2. 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) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-13: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Serena Rancho Del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13 - Brehm Communities 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-12: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12 - Gold Key Development AGENDA -2- August 23, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Chula Vista City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-5M, Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 4.29-acre area, located on the southerly side of Oxford Street, between Fourth Avenue and the Lauderbach Park and Community Center, from "Parks and Open Space" and "Special Study Area" to "Low/Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)" on the plan diagram of the said Montgomery Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND 1. The proposed amendment, which would redesignate an area of about 4.29 acres from "Parks and Open Space" and "Special Study Area" to "Low/Medium Density Residential," was initiated by the City, pursuant to City Council instructions of April 4, 1989. The City Council's action followed two workshops conducted by the Montgomery Planning Committee. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has studied the instant proposal, under IS-89-75M, and has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact upon the environment. He recommends that the Committee adopt the Draft Negative Declaration issued in conjunction with IS-89-75M. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Draft Negative Declaration issued in conjunction with IS-89-75M, and consider its contents during the review of GPA-89-SM. 2. Adopt a motion to approved GPA-89-5M. Montgomery Planning Committee's recommendation: 1. Adopt the Draft Negative Declaration issued under IS-89-5M. 2. Approve GPA-89-5M. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing Characteristics The subject area is located on the southerly side of Oxford Street, between the Lauderbach Park/Community Center complex and Fourth Avenue, in the "Oxford Street Focus" of the Castle Park Subcommunity. Its 4.29 acres are subdivided into 13 holdings or parcels of land, and contain 25 dwelling units housed in seven single-family dwellings and nine duplexes. The subdivision pattern of the area lacks geometric regularity and order. 2. Adjacent Montgomery Specific Plan Designations. (Please see Exhibit A.) Chula Vista City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 2 The plan diagram of the Montgomery Specific Plan {General Plan) designates the subject area as "Parks and Open Space" and "Special Study Area." The adjacent designations are as follows: North: Mercantile & Office Commercial, and Institutional {Fire Station); High Density Residential South: Institutional East: Parks and Open Space West: Institutional (Fire Station) & Low/Medium Density Residential 3. Adjacent zoning and land use. (Please see Exhibit B.) North: C36 and RU29 Post Office; Single-Family Dwellings; Apartment Houses South: RU29 Church East: RV15 Lauderbach Park & Community Center West: RV15 & RS7 Fire Station; Single-Family Dwellings D. ANALYSIS 1. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at the conclusion of its second workshop on the planning and zoning of the subject area, called the Oxford Street Special Study Area, adopted the following findings. "a. The need to expand Lauderbach Park is clear and present, and should be pursued, in accordance with the Montgomery Specific Plan. "b. The retention of the "Special Study Area" overlay designation on the lands of the Oxford Street Special Area is no longer essential to protect the public interest. The retention of the "Parks and Open Space" designation on these lands is also no longer necessary, provided that they are redesignated "Low/Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre)" on the plan diagram of the Montgomery Special Plan, and rezoned from "RU29" to "R-2." These changes would protect the existing low-to-medium residential fabric of the area, and allow moderate growth. They would not, however, economically preclude the City from negotiation for the expansion of Lauderbach Park. "c. Most of the owners/residents of the Oxford Special Study Area support the redesignation of their area to Low/Medium Density Residential, and the rezoning of such to "R-2." 2. The Planning Department concurs with the Montgomery Planning Committee that there is a substantial need for additional parksites and acreage within the Montgomery Community, and that this need is especially critical in the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street. Chula Vista City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 3 3. The Department also supports the Committee's finding that the designation of the subject Oxford Street lands as "Parks and Open Space" and "Special Study Area" is no longer essential to the protection of the City's interest in expanding Lauderbach Park and civic facilities, provided that the said lands were redesignated to "Low/Medium Density Residential" on the Specific Plan's diagram, rezoned to "R-2." This redesignation and rezoning would protect the existing character of the involved area, but would permit a moderate increase in its density and dwelling-unit yield. 4. The protection of the character of the residential enclave in question is of cardinal importance. Despite its irreqular subdivision pattern, this area manifests high levels of order, amenity, and environmental quality. E. CONCLUSION The proposed specific plan amendment would protect the residential character of the project area, but still permit moderate residential development therein. The amendment would also protect the community's interest in the future expansion of Lauderbach Park. NOTES 1. The proposed rezoning of the project area to "R-2-P" will be processed under the Montgomery Comprehensive Rezoning Program. 2. The Oxford Street Special Study Area also includes the lands of the Lauderbach Community Center and Park, and the adjoining parcel of land to the east, which accommodates the new "Oxford Street Apartments." The proposed amendment would also remove the "Special Study Area" designations from these sites. 3. The proposed, amended plan diagram would continue to depict the Lauderbach Recreation Center and Park as "Parks and Open Space." The stylized symbol for a "park" would be superimposed on the site, in order to emphasize its park and recreation importance, and the potential expansion of its park activity. WPC 6521P MO.TGOMERY SPECIFIC PLA"~GPA-89-SM GENERAL PLAN f 4~ CHANGE FROM ~PARKS & OPEN [~7~ LOW/MHD DENSITY RES, (3-6 dM/ac) SPACE' & 'SPECIAL STUDY' ~7~ HIGH DENSITY RES. (18-27 dM/ac) 0 200 TO 'LOW/MHD DENSITY ~ MERCANTILE & OFF. COMM. RESIDENTIAL' ~ ,AR~S, O,E. S,^CE I~c°~MuN'TY ~NE,G,.o.HooD DEN. EXHIBIT A INSTITUTIONAL ,.~ City of Chula Vista - Advance P~nning Dept. 4110/89 a,d ~ , RU 2 9 se,, storage C36 Z sfd mfd Post uJ / tfd ~ sfd I I ~ Z --I I ~ -- ~ Square , . -- - Ofc; I Center I afd~ sfd I sfd I sfd~l I sfd I OXfOrD ST~BT sfdL ~sUBj A Church -- ~ : Church ECT R 5 : : sfd mfd ~ ,,~ RU29 ~ ret. ~ RV15 I ret. tfG ~ sfd sfd sfd ~ SINGLE FAMILY CHANGE FROM "PARKS & OPEN ~ SPACE" & "SPECIAL STUDY' ~ DH~ffX 0 20o ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY TO "LOW/MED DENSITY ~ RETAIL ~ COMMUNITY & RESIDENTIAL" N~H~O~HO0O C~N. EXHIBIT B ~ RESTAURANT ~ City of Chula Vista - Advance Planning Dept. 4/10189 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Oxford Street Special Study Area PROJECT LOCATION: Southern side of Oxford Street, between the Lauderbach Center and the Fire Station (Fourth Avenue) PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-89-?5M DATE: May 24, 1989 A. Project Setting The project is located in the Castle Park subcommunity of the t~ontgomery Area. The project site itself includes thirteen parcels, totaling 4.29 acres, located on the southeast corner of Oxford Street and Fourth Avenue in the "Oxford Street Sepcial Study Area". The project area currently houses 25 dwelling units, 7 of which are single-family dwellings and 9 are duplexes. Surrounding land uses include mercantile and office commercial, institutional (post office) and high density residential to the north, institutional (church) to the south, parks and open space to the east and institutional (fire station) and low/ medium density residential to the west. B. Project Description The project proposal is a request to amend the General Plan designation from existing Parks & Open Space to Low/Medium Density Residential 13-6 dwelling units per acre), and eventually to rezone the area from RU29 (County zoning) to R-2. These changes would protect the existing low-to-medium density residential fabric of the area. They would not, however, economically preclude the City from negotiation for the expansion of Lauderbach Park. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans This project involves an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Montgomery Specific Plan to permit proposed low/medium density residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). For future development, a rezoning application would have to be considered. D.Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The estimated Fire/EMS response time is 5 minutes which is within the 7-minute threshold standard for fire protection established by the City of Chula Vista. L city of chula vista planning department CI~'~ environmental review section (~HU[A 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard for this service. 3. Traffic The proposed project would generate 98 new average daily trips (ADT's). With the project, Oxford Street would continue to maintain a level of service ILOS) D. Under the Threshold/Standards Policy for Chula Vista, any signalized intersections west of 1-805 which does not meet an LOS of C, may continue to operate at their current LOS, but shall not worsen. The widening of Oxford Street for a length of 100 feet east of the Fire Station is required in order to provide 26 feet from centerline to face of curb (this would make a total length of 290 feet from the intersection with street improvement). In addition to street widening at the intersection, measures should be taken to correct a slope erosion problem at 357 Oxford Street. At present, the soil from a slope adjacent to the sidewalk at this address is spilling onto the sidewalk. 4. Park/Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project does not exceed adopted threshold standards but Park Acquisition and Development IPAD) fees must be paid for future development of homes. The Parks and Recreation Department highly recommends the possibility of expanding Lauderbach Park in future years. 5. Drainage Review of the development proposal has resulted in the determination that surface drainage flow and drainage design meet established engineering standards. 6. Sewer The existing 12" sewer line flowing west on Oxford Street is adequate to serve the proposed project; thus the threshold standards are met. 7. Water The project site is located within a previously established urbanized area with water supplies adequate to meet established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects The proposed General Plan amendment does not have the potential for significant adverse environmental effects since the area is already built out to its potential under the proposed General Plan designation. -3- 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 General Plan Amendment and rezoning change will protect and maintain the existing urban fabric of the area, thus there is no potential to substantially degrade the quality of life. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The amendment has no identified adverse environmental effects which would adversely affect short- or long-term environmental goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The amendment has no possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Since the project area is established as already urbanized there will be no adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 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 Trisha Zonkel, Planning Intern -4- Applicant's Agent: Daniel M. Pass 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Principal, Advanced Planning Division 2. Documents Chapter 19.70, Title 19 {Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code Montgomery Specific Plan 1988 Montgomery Planning Committee Public Hearing for GPA-89-SM 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. '~R~NATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6457P city of chula vista planning department CITYO~c environmental review section. CHULA VISTA FUR UFFICE USE Case No. /$- E INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of'Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 3. BRIEF PR~ECT DESCRIPTION ~ ~c~ '~ ~ ~k~ ~ ~o ~Z 4. Name of Applicant ('~,~, ~c~c~x~ ~,~ ~'~ Address ~ ~ ~,~a~ cs~xo.~!,x~ Phone k~ -~ q ~-~,~ City State -, Zip ~k 0 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~ ~x~ ~.~ ~- ~ , Phone ~%~-~,~ Address ~ ~kk~.~,e. City State Zip Relation to Applicant ~,~c~ _ ~[k~c~ ~koK~<r~,~i ~-~,~c 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environ~ntal Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoni ng/Prezoni ng Tentative Subd. Map Annexation - Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ~_ Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report ~ Other~ Approvals Required E~i 3 IRev. !2/~2) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage · If land area to be dedicated~ state acreage and purpose. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type devel'opm~ht:-'-Sihgle familY-]' ~ 'Two' family___~ Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms .... 4 bedrooms ~otal units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) ~-J-~ ~ e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedicati-0n) ~.~ ~ -~.~ f. Estimated project population ~'d~) g. Estimated sale or rental price range ~k~~.=~.~ . h. Square footage of floor area(s) ~1 ~. 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 ., J~ Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operationi not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? --~ d. ~hat 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.)~.~.x 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. ~$ill highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project s i te? 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? %~_ 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? ~ {If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? ~ (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? ~o (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? ~ - 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 cau~e-~osion or ~ltation. to adjacent areas? ~o e. Describe all dr~inage facilities to be provided and their location. ~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed p~oject site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? ~.~o 4. Biology a. Is the prJj'ect site in'~ natural 6r-partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. ~>x~,h~-k.~.,,% 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? ~jO b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? ~ 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. (o ,~',~x~ ~\~\, ~<~k~\\q ~F\~ - 6 - b. Describe all structure~ and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. South East West 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current' ~'~oy~en-~ O~p~r~uni~t-i~ ~n--s~e~/?--i~ so, how many and what type?) Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: ~b~ ~ North ~Z~ South 12_~4 East ~ l~ Does the project conform to ~ ~ ~~ ~ current zoning? 2. General Plan land use 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? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic rou{es? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as show, 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 o~ parkland are necessary Go serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop. ) ~rt~z~ ~,O-->~.d) .~--> ,l? ~1C~t~/~. Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~O. -9- 3. Schools If the proposed project is resid_ential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated - School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementar~ L~6rdo~cl~ bq',_~.~ ......... oF(~b . _ ~,~ ~ I~.,~ 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.) - -- n , , V~3~ ~'~~ 5. Ener~7 Consumption . Provide the estimated consumption by ~he proposed projec~ of ~he follow~n9 SOUVC~S ~ ............... Natural Gas (per year) l~iO.~ ;-~ ~,~/.~ ~'~/'~ Water {per day) Dir~cco d~lng or ~epr~se~dE~ve~ Oate - l0 - Case No. ~ G. ~)IGINEERI)~G DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject.to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create anylflooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~ .'~ I ',..u '"F ~ 0 ' ~',. e. Are they adequate to serve the project? . f. What. is the location and description-of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~+ j~, . . g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. ~ransportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~ b. Uhat 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. ~t -~0 ~ ~'~) L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project~ .¥~ If not, explain briefly. - e. ~ill it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? __~ If so, specify the general nature of the ne6essary actions. 3. .Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?. ~ 5~ ~, Landslide or slippage? _ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~ ~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project b. If yes, what are 'these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site? p/q~ b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? 7. Air O~ality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips " Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution Hydrocarbons q $ X" 18.3 : HOx (NO2) ~i~ X 20.0 Particulates ~ ~ ~< 1.5 = Sulfur ~ S ~' X .78 = 8. I~&~ ~e Generation 7~.~'~ How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? '~ - - ...... Solid ~qq6 Liquid l~hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~.~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? .~Y~,~i ~/ 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 /~/~ -13(a)- Case No. "J-~ - ~:}-'~r~5- 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 0~~ Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks q:o? ~,Lc~. ,c~/~ ¢/u.,~-~.~_.~ 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Co¥cil policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative. po~ CHUI,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL-DISTRICT 84 EAST"J"STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA92010 · 619 425-9600 BOARD OF EDUCA~ON ~ARON G~L£$ ~TR~K ~ ~OY $CH~ENBERG FP~K~NT~NO Nay 17, 1989 MAY I 9 1989 SUPERINTENDENT ROBE~ J. McCARTH~ ~ Hr. Doug Reid £nvironmenta] Revie~ 276 Fourth Avenue Chu]a V~s~a, CA 920[0 R£: Case No: [S-89-75 App]~can[: City of Chu]a Vista Location: SouChend Side of Oxford S~., between Lauderbach Cen~er and [he F~re S~a~on (Fourth Avenue) Pro~ec~: AmendmenC of Plan Des~gnaC~on of ~he HonCgomery Specific Plan - From Parks and Open Space ~o Lo~-I~ed. Density Ees~dent~a] Dear Hr. Ee~d: Thank you for the oppor~uni[y ~o rev~e~ ~nd commen~ on the above referenced proposal. As stated in previous correspondence to ~he £~y to proposed rezoning in the Hon~gomery area, the District requests ~hat any future development on property ~h~ch rezoned from non-residential to residential uses be conditioned so tha~ impacts on schools, in ~his case, Lauderbach School, are fully mitigated. If you have any questions, please do not hesi[a~e to contact me. Sincere]y, Kate Shurson D~rector of Plannin~ . KS:dp Sweet. ter Union High Schou, District May 26, 1989 ~A¥ ~ 0 1989 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environment Coordinator City of Chula Vista Building Department P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: 15-89-75/Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment This letter is sent in reference to the Notice of Initial Study for the above subject project. The Sweetwater Union High School District supports the general components of the specific plan amendments. However, there are two issues relative to how development and its fiscal impact upon our agency must be addressed. The first issue deals with adequate school housing. Because of severe overcrowding conditions, the district assesses school impact fees on all new construction. Additionally, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District may be established if a development project exceeds a specific threshold, established upon mutual agreement by both school districts. In light of the recent Mira Development Corporation vs. City of San Diego court decision, I believe that the Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment should include language which indicates the impact new development may have on the District and the manner in which the City and school district will address these impacts. The second issue relates to the proposed zoning of the district office property. The Sweetwater Union High School District must take opposition to the proposed R-1 land use designation for the current administration center. The proposed zoning is inconsis- tent with the Montgomery Specific Plan and is out of character with the surrounding land use. We have previously expressed this concern and as a result, ~e subsequent development of the Montgomery Specific Plan resuYted in a land use designation for multi-family development at 6-~1 dwelling units per acre. As you know, the district's cont~nua~ use of this site means that adverse impacts, i.e., increased on-s~reet parking, increased Mr. Douglas D. ~d May 26, 1989 Page 2 bussing and freight deliveries can be expected. These impacts are in conflict with a residential neighborhood. Staff has already met with the City's traffic engineering personnel in an attempt to resolve neighbors complaints about parking. We feel that if the zoning is to be changed, a land use designation of R-2-P is more appropriate. Such a zone will allow an acceptable integration of new developement with the existing residential character of the neighborhood. The "P" designation would provide the community the opportunity to participate in any land use decision affecting this property. If you have any questioas or comments, please feel free to contact me at 691-5553. Respectfully, Thomas Silva Director of Planning Ts/sf cc: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista City Schools City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional ~lannin~ area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Roa,~ ~etween Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcres~ 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 from the meeting of July 12, 1989 and August 9, 1989, in order to allow the applicant and adjacent property owners additional time to address certain interface issues. 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 20% or 11 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; namely, that reduced sideyards shall be level, l0 ft. between dwellings shall be maintained, garage conversions are prohibited as reflected in the CC&R's, and locations are subject to staff approval. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 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. A 15' wide landscaping area featuring trees shall be incorporated adjacent to the westerly property line of lots 23-29. The CC&R's shall set forth requirements of maintenance in perpetuity and preclude the construction of any structure higher than the rear fence. The City shall be made a party to this portion of the CC&R's to insure continued enforcement. e. 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 sign 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. The 6' cedar fence with pilasters shall be extended along the west property line to include lots 23 through 29. f. The decorative fence shall be used on the exterior sideyards of Lots 2 & 3 adjacent to the Street between Lots 2 and 3. g. 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. h. The CC&R'S shall contain private fence/wall standards for slopes and top of slopes as well as landscaping requirements, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. i. 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 3 j. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water District wi th 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. k. 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. 1. Fire hydrants shall be required at maximum 500 ft. spacing subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. m. 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. *NOTE: Final recommendation is to provide a knuckle design at the west end of the subdivision to preclude vehicular access while providing for pedestrian access with a sidewalk and landscaping. n. 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. o. 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 4 p. 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 lO feet from the back of sidewalk. q. Sewers serving l0 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. r. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. s. The cul-de-sac and the knuckle shall be designed and built in accordance with City Standards. t. 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. u. All off-site grading within the private property shall require a Letter of Permission from the property owners allowing the work to be done. v. 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. The developer shall consult with the adjacent property owner to determine the most desirable location for the sewer. Said extension shall be shown on the Final Improvement Plans for the subdivision. w. 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. x. 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 y. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI. z. 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 aa. All vertical curves and intersection corner sight distance requirements shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 5 bb. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. cc. Lots 46 through 54 shall relinquish access rights to Southview Circle. dd. 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. ee. No driveways shall be located within 8 feet of any curb return unless approved by the City Engineer. ff. 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. gg. The street name for Santa Cruz Court is subject to change. hh. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. ii. 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 earthwork and/or the installation of retaining walls at the time the adjoining property develops. The developer of the adjoining property 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 necessary re-landscaping or refencing on the lots. jj. The developer shall enter into an agreement in which he agrees to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of the Telegraph Canyon Channel or inclusion in said district. kk. The issuance of building permits for this project shall be predicated on proof of compliance with the City-adopted Growth Management Program. 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 (on-site and off-site) show the following information: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 6 -- 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 ~ap. f. Revise the tract number to read Chula Vista Tract 89-8. C. DISCUSSION Existing 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 (Southview 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 ll 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 7 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. which In 1988, the Council adopted a policy for P-C zoned developments3, allows 20% of the lots within a project to reduce sideyards from and 10' to 5' and 5' for dwellings with a 3-car garage. Woodcrest was originally requesting an increase in the allowance from 20% to 33%, or from ll to 18 lots. As a result of concerns raised at the last Commission hearing, however, they are no longer requesting an exception from the policy. 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 l0 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. Adjoining 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 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 8 Neighborhood concerns As indicated in the Background portion of this report, consideration for Commission approval of this Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map were continued to allow the applicant to address certain neighborhood concerns raised at the July 12 meeting. Those concerns centered on the following issues: 1. The desirability and necessity of carrying Santa Cruz Court to the west to connect the present portion of Santa Cruz which stubs into Buena Vista. 2. How should the adjacent subdivision to the west be buffered from this development. Explore the possibility of using landscaping, alternative subdivision design, and/or change in topography. 3. Further clarification on the improvements required for the stub street interfacing wi th the Centrullo property located south of the easterly portion of this development. In reference to concern number l, the extension of Santa Cruz Court, the Planning staff indicated at the previous Planning Commission hearing that the development of this site with single-family homes and existing developments in the area make it logical to provide the road connection to complete the linkages that provide for typical urban services, such as mail service and other deliveries. In addition, the connection provides a convenience to residents in the area who might have children attending the elementary school lying west of Southwestern College. However, the northerly dedication of Santa Cruz is dependent upon cooperation with Southwestern College which apparently is still uncertain as to the ultimate land use that may be placed on the southwesterly quadrant of their College facility. Any future access onto Santa Cruz by the College would not be looked on favorably by the staff in terms of providing a connection back to the west onto Buena Vista. Therefore, we have asked the applicant of this subdivision to design a knuckle at the west end of Santa Cruz to preclude vehicular movement while allowing pedestrian activity to flow between the two areas. We feel this offers the best design solution at this point in time. In regards to item 2, the question of buffering the project at the west end, the project applicant has met with various homeowners on the 1st of August explaining that the lots on the west side within the subdivision are somewhat lower than the existing adjacent parcels immediately to the west with a differential of grade of as much as ll' near the end of the cul-de-sac. The applicant has offered to create a 15' wide landscaping buffer zone on lots 23 through 29 which interface on the west side of the property. In addition, the applicant is proposing the continuation of the 6' high cedar fence with pilasters located at each property line to provide a decorative fence separation between the two developments. The landscaping buffer would also preclude the construction of any structures over the height of the fence within that 15' area and would require the homeowners to maintain the tree form landscaping in perpetuity. We are recommending that the City be a party to that portion of the CC&R's to ensure its enforcement. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 9 Item no. 3 involves the proposed improvements ultimately required for the stub street which interfaces with the Centrullo property located near the east end of the development. Attached is a letter dated July 21, 1989, from the Woodcrest Development to Mr. Gordon Day who resides along Telegraph Canyon Road frontage with a carbon copy to Mrs. Centrullo indicating their effort in trying to meet with Mrs. Centrullo to resolve the grading issues. The letter again indicates a willingness to meet with Mrs. Centrullo as well as Mr. Day or any consultants that they might have to discuss the issues. The applicant has indicated as of this date that no contact has been made by the parties addressed in the letter. The Planning Department is recommending, therefore, that the Planning Commission approve the project with the conditions listed in the report. 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page l0 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. 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 Road. 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. 5. The subdivision has been designed to allow an east-west orientation for a majority of the dwellings in order to provide for passive or natural heating opportunities. The size of the lots along with tiering of lots and private and common open space areas will provide for passive or natural cooling opportunities. WPC 6637P Exhibit A Z p- DATE.' July 7, 1989 PRClIECT NO.: 88.358 LOT AREA TABLE FOR WOODCREST 'i'~:~/~H CAN~ON 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~ 7~58~ 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 07/07/89 PAreR 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 August 3, 1989 Dear Planning Commissioners: At the July 12 Planning Commission meeting some of my neighbors and I addressed the Commission during the public hearing on the subject of the Woodcrest Southwestern Development. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission expressed their concerns about this project and asked the developer if he would like an exteDsion to have an opportunity to respond to comments from the commissioners and residents. The developer was also asked if AuGust 9 would be a satisfactory date. The developer agreed to that date. However, residents were not asked if August 9 was a convenient date for them. Unfortunately, three families living at the end of La Mancha Place, including myself, will be on previously planned ~.mmer vacations the week of August 7, therefore unable to attend the August 9 meeting. On August 1, the developer held a meeting with residents and it is evident attempts are being made to resolve many of our concerns. However, some questions regarding conditions,, convenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) were asked and the developer has not had time to respond to these questions. Also, as of August 2, the developer was still working with staff on a change in the road, which could somewhat alter siting of homes adjacent to my property line and at the end of La Mancha Place. Since all interested parties, including myself, have not seen final plans or heard answers to questions regarding CC&R's, it is respectfully requested that the Woodcrest Southwestern agenda item be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting. I realize this project has been delayed at least four times, however, this is the first request from residents for an extension. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincere 1395 La Mancha Pl~f,e X , Chula Vista, CA 92010 DAY: md AUG 4 1 WOODCREST . . DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 5473 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 210 · San Diego. CA 92123 1619) 277-9810 FAX [619J 277-9820 July ~1, 1989-- Mr. Gordon Day 1483 Telegraph Canyon Road Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: TRACT 89-8, WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN Dear Mr. Day, I would like to respond to a few of the statements you made at the July 12th Planning Commission Meeting with regard to our project, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, Woodcrest Southwestern. First, it should be made clear that Mrs. Centrullo, whom you represent, has a dispute with the original purchasers of her property and not Woodcrest Development. Second, your statement that Woodcrest is unwilling to meet with Mrs. Centrullo is incorrect. I did meet with Mrs. Centrullo in February of this year to show her our plans. After that meeting, she retained William S. Cannon, Esq. to represent her. I met Mr. Cannon and spoke on the phone with him through the months requesting a meeting with Mrs. Centrullo to review our plans and discuss her concerns. I even suggested she hire a consultant to attend the meeting to verify that our plans would benefit her. I was told by Mr. Cannon that she did not want to meet. I wrote directly to Mrs. Centrullo in a final effort to meet a week prior to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12th and received a return phone call. She asked where the intersection of the access street to her property was located. I responded that the engineering department required we move it westerly a short distance and I would not have the final location for a couple of days. She then said that if the intersection was not in the same location as shown on the preliminary plan, it would not be acceptable and she did not want to meet. Also, upon my request, our attorney had several conversations with Mrs. Centrullo's attorney. We presented to him alternate design proposals in an effort to accommodate her frequently changing requests regarding our project. These efforts were also of no avail. Page 1 of 2 Mr. Gordon Day July 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Finally, I would like to clarify that Woodcrest did not suggest to the planning staff that her property be down zoned. Nor did we have anything to do with the recommendation that the developer of her property compensate the City for any work that might be needed on our lots 1 - 5 and 7 - 13 in order to develop her property. I am willing to meet with Mrs. Centrullo, you or any consultants you may have to discuss our project. Please call me if you~,wish to set up a ~e~i~g, Thank_you Sincerely, WOODC~ST. D~VELORMENT ~ng~d J. Van Daele ' Vic~ President mV/jm cc: Mrs. Centrullo Chula Vista Planning Department GRAY, CARY, AMES & FRYE: 454-9101 August 18, 1989 Planning Commission city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, California 92010 Re: Woodcrest Southwestern/Chula vista Tract No. 89-08 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This is written to clarify the position of Woodcrest Development of San Diego concerning problems raised by Mrs. Mary Centrullo, who owns property adjacent to the proposed project on Chula Vista Tract 89-08. Mrs. Centrullo claims she is entitled to an easement across a large portion of the Woodcrest property. Her claim apparently arises out of negotiations she had at the time she sold the property to investors, who later sold it to Woodcrest. Mrs. Centrullo has been making this claim for at least six months, through various attorneys and representatives. The claim has been investigated, and neither woodcrest nor its title insurer believes it to have merit. Mrs. Centrullo's claim of an easement seems to be her only basis for objecting to woodcrest's proposed development. That claim is a private matter between private property owners. Nonetheless, she has objected to the project before this Commission and has indicated that she will not withdraw her objection unless woodcrest consents to construct substantial improvements on her property, at significant cost. If her demands are met, she will also abandon the easement claim. In an attempt to resolve the matter, Woodcrest has made every reasonable effort to arrive at a compromise agreement over the past six months. Woodcrest and its representatives have met or talked with Mrs. Centrullo or her various representatives on at least twenty occasions, and have made a number of written proposals, during the past six months or more. Nothing has yet proven to be satisfactory. Efforts to negotiate are still under RECEIVED AUG 181o 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CNULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Chula Vista Planning Commission August 18, 1989 Page 2 way. As of today, it is uncertain at best whether Woodcrest can reach an agreement with Mrs. Centrullo within the next few days. Woodcrest submits that Mrs. Centrullo's claim of easement has nothing to do with the merits of this project or with land use issues of concern to the city of Chula vista. She seems to be using the planning process to influence the resolution of a private title dispute. The staff of the Planning Department has examined the The pro]ec~ carefully, and has recommended your approval. hearing on this project has been continued twice, once at woodcrest's request, and most recently at the request of Mrs. Centrullo and other neighbors. A reasonable agreement has been reached with the other neighbors (who actually had concerns related to the design of the project), but an agreement with Mrs. Centrullo may not be possible. Under these circumstances, we urge the Planning Commission to review this project on its merits, and let Mrs. Centrullo assert her easement claim in the courts if necessary. For/ GR~, CA~V~, AMES & FRYE KZ: SMR: cl cc: woodcrest Development of San Diego negatiw 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 17, 1989 ' .: ::. :~- _: :. . A. P~,oject Settinq 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 sihgle family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, ~'condomi~ium towhh'omes are to the east with open space and single family dwellings to the south. B; Project Descript{on. 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 to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. ~(~ -- city of chula vista planning department ~ CI~ OF environmental review section CH[JlA VISTA -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 Roadr 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 15,1?O. 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 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 Rn~ 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 ~n_Telegraph Canyon Road, fl owing westerly. The existing sewer main is adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water Wa~r wiil be p~Ovided by the OtaY Water District, The water supply from the. San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay War? District may-be ]~mitea during h6t Weather days-of th~ YearJ The Distri:ct hat prepahed a-'w~ter 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 ih::a6cordanC~: With th6' 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 ~a~_W~er District has not objected to the project 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 enoineer to be suitable for development with nominal and relatively standard earthwork and site preparation procedures. -4- 9. N.o.ise 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 (1) 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, ~4arch 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 #6, 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, llne total capacity for Bonita High ~i 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 2,000+ students. Completion is expected for the 1991-92 school year. Preliminary pla'nning has begun on the middle school facility within Rancho del Rey SPA III, south of East H Street on Paseo Ranchero. ll. ~iological 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 communitj(. The development will ~rsely effect the coastal sage scrub comm~nit~ on the project site. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub p]_ag.~_~o_m_~n~ty; however, ...... few inOi~id~al S~w~r6-fO~-d~ ........ 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 wi~h.nat~v~ 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 Effect~ 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 £ 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 Hater 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 oroject must meet the requirements established in the water all'ocation 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 Otav ~¢ater District's requirements regarding the location of the pip~line. 4. Geology 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--noi~'e--~nrbom--modet--was-~d4~FH-zed'to assess the impact on the proposed project from noise generated by Telegraph Canyon Road which has b::,, 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, nQ. siqnificant noise impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 6. Schools ., . 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 ad:qu~L: 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 RECO)i in July 1988. )1o historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found t¢ithin the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. -8- F. ~i,ti~ation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effectc 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. P~rk s/Recreati on 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 Chul,a 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 Prooosed 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. ~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, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 5. )loise There are no significant noise impacts associated with the project and no mitigation measures are required. -9- 6. .S~chools The Sweetwater and the Chula Vista City School districts have -168icated 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. _~l~al 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 Resource._____~s Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural ~esources and no mitigation measures are required. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described, above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be Prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminat'e 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 ~'~--i~h~ified 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. 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 ~mpact. 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 Orqanization~ 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 Planning 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 llunicipal 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 Vist~-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. REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 6222P city of chula vista planning department CITY -- environmental review lectlon.(~HUL~ FUR UFFICE USE Case No. Fee ~ ~,¢, _~~,~_ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No,_ _/7/~-~ ~ 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 %I~F OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD RETWFFN APACHF nP ~k!n RUES~ VISTA Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 642-050-06 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 54 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4. Name of Applicant WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO INC. Address 5475 KEARNY VILLA RD., SUITE 210 Phone 61q-?77-q~ln City SAN DIEGO State GA Zip 9717~ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent BIGGS ENGINEERING COPR. Address 2245 SAN DIEGO AVENUE= ~HITF l?l Phone 61q-2qg-5641 City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip q2110 Relation to Applicant PROdECT 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 ~ Others'.AA . b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Nap Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report ~.~ Plan -- Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Grading Site Plan -- Photos of Site & __Biological Study Parcel Map '-- Setting __ Archaeological Survey Precise Plan ~ Tentative Subd. Hap Noise Assessment Specific Plan t~provement 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 acreag~ ....... 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 FAMILY DETACHFD 25+ 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) ~.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 area(s) 2150 + - 2600+ SF + 600+SF GARAGE i. Peccent of lot covenage by buildings or structures 0.45 MAX (0.36 AVG.) j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 167 (3/IHT) + qTREET 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. Fstimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - 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? 40~000 + C.¥. h. How many cubic yards of fill wil~ be placed? 54,000 ~ C.Y. c. How rlUCh area /sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 14.3 ~_AC. d. What will be the - ~laximum depth of cut 27' ~ Average depth of cut 9' ~ Maximum depth of fill _ 35' ~ Average depth of fill 10' ~ - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, hea~ing equipment, etc.) AIR CONDITIONING~ GAS FURNACE, TYPICAL MODERN ELECTRIC APPLIANCES 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 4.~G + 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? 540+ 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: net~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. NFW qTRFFT~r EXTENSION OF GAS, ELECTRIC~ AND SEWER LINES. CUT AND FILL qlNPF~ ~RAINAGE FACILITIES (AS REQUIRED) D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. ~eology 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 ~n or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please e>:pla~n 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 si~e? YES EXISTIN~TRAINAGE CHANNEL ADJACENT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD. - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. 'C6uld drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. SFF TFNFTATTVF [qAP NO. ~q.~8 (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 site in a natural or partially natural state? THF PR~,IFET %TTF IR CURRFNTIY TN IT'S NATURAL STATE b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. NO FXTSTING TREES ON SITE. 5. 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 PROdECT 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 PROdECT SITE. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. ~D IS CURRENTLY VAC/~qT AND IN IT'S ~TURAL STATE. - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North N/A South I~/A East N/A West N/A 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. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. - 8 - (- CaseNo.~_/~ ........ CITy-DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North ~_ / South East ~_0_ ~-- West ~._~ Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use ............... .es~gnation on site: ~~.._~: ~¢ ~. North ~ .~ ~ ~.~ ~ ,~ -- -' South ~ ~~ ~ East ~'¢ ~ ~ ~ ~<~ West ~ ~/ ,, ,-,~ z. ', Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ( Is the project area des~nated for conservation or open space or to an area so/~esignated? ~ - ~ ~z~ ~t~ ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the.scenic quality of Chula Vista.). J~ ~ /~ '~ ...... 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. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain'f~atures 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 o~ Planning or Representative Date G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT l. Drainage a. Is the~roject site within a flood plain? Ye~.~o~7o~ b. Nil1 the project be subject'to any ex~st~ng floodSng hazards? %-:, c. ~ill the project create any:flooding hazards? ~a. d. What ~s the location and description o¢ ex~st~ng on-s~te drMnage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve ~he project? ~ ~ . f. What is the location a~ description of existing off-site g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~s. ~~ 2. Transportation OHA~, ~T ~JECT IS IN ~N d~C~ AT 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)? ~ I~ ~ ~q~ moo~o~m~ ~. c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After d. Are the primary access road~ adequate to serve ~he pro~ect? e. ~i]]']t be n~essaPy ~at additional dedication, ~$denin9 and/or ~mprovement be made to ex~stin9 streets? If so, specify the genera] nature of the ~ecessar~ actions. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject' to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?. )/~/alL k.a ~n ._ Landslide or slippage? ~ ~Jr~j b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~a. 4. Soils a. Are ther~ any anticipated advqrse soil ~ond~n~O~-~J~projJct b. If yes, what aKe these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. 'Land Form a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site? l!t'~C b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? Z~:I 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enouQh to .iustify that a noise analysis ~ reared of the applicant? ~S, ~,'~ ~om Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ,~(per day) Factor Pollution CO Hydrocarbons ~J31 X ....118.3 : &~ X 18.3 : II NOx (NO2) X 20.0 Particulates : /z.~(b Sulfur ~ ~ 1.5 : ~ .78 : 8. NJ~{e Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid Iql~-,-If Liquid [~/ZeD What is the~locat~on and size o~isting sewer lines o , to the site. /~" W~ --, -~-- _. ~ r4-O~ adjacent .... z/'~ I /.)./J' ...... Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? -- 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact -If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. /Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any pub)lc street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~y En ~ . . - :~ ~ - 13- Case No. H. FIRE DEPAR~EN? 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire sta. tion and ,what is the Fire Depart~_~~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? 3. Remarks .~.~ ~ FTre Marshal -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project -~d~qua~e to serve the popul~a~i0n inCrease resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative (- L Regional Environmental Consultants . August 2, 1988 Mr. Thomas K. Olson Baldwin Moore Commercial Real Estate Services 2515 Caminffdel Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA. 92108 Reference: Cultural Resource Studies for Bonita Vista Townhomes (RECON Number R-1855) Dear Mr. Olson: Th'is' felte'r'describe~--the- -rest~lts--of --a- -su-rvey for- historic and prehistoric archaeologi- cal sites on the Bonita Vista Townhomes project area (Figures i and 2). The cultural resources studies conducted' for this 19-acre property included field and -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 werc 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 Morena 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 · " ' .PROJECT LOCATION ' --+" ..... -r'"~' ' 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. REC N Regional Environmental Consultants August 4, 1988 Mr. Thomas K. Olson Bald~vin Moore Commercial Real Estate Services 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 125 gan Diego, CA 92108 Reference: Biological Resources Survey for Bonito Vista Townhomes (RECON Number R-1855) 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 (Viguiera 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 (Schinus 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 californica), with scattered other shrub species including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), matchweed (Gutierrezia bracteata), coast encelia (Eucelia 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 weed), annual grassland of predominantly wild oats (Arena fatua), smooth brome (Brotnus 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 habitants. Rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.) and California ground squirrels (Citelhts beecheyi) were observed, and a dead grey fox (Urocyqn cinereoargenteus) xvas found on site. Habitat value on the site is loxv 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 St. · Scottsoale, AZ 85251 · (602) 947-8042 3120 Chicago Avenue · Riverside, CA 92507 · (714) 784-9480 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. 7.5 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, NATIONAL CITY, JAMUL MTS., IMPERIAL BEACH, AND OTAY MESA QUADRANGLES -1855 7/88 --ZZZ ~Z~ZZ~ZZ~ZZZZ~ZZZ~Z~Z TABI .F. 2 BIRDS OBSERVED Common Name Scientific Name American kestrel Falco sparverius California quail Callipepla californica californica Killdeer Charadrius vocifents vocifents Mourning dove Zenaida macroura marginella Anna's hummingbird Archilochus anna Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota tachina Common raven Con,us corax clarionensis Bushtit Psaltriparus mmimus minirnus Bewick's wren Thyromanes bewickii Wrentit Chamaea fasciata henshawi House finch Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis Brown towhee Pijgilo fitscus 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 3) are known to occur in Telegraph Canyon in habitats such as those present on the site. Only one, the San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniatct) 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 the land. If the coastal sage scrub were preserved, the scrub would be in the middle of the property and construction would occu-r all around it. The small patch of coastaI 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 (Encetia 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, Bobble 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 Tanager 45(8):1-8. Westman, Walter E. 1987 Implications of Ecological Theory for Rare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. In Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants: £roceedings from a Conference of the California Native t~lant Society, edited by T. S. Elias, pp. 133-140. Sacramento. 10595 JAMACHA BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92(378 TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619 March 22, 1989 £ ? 989 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, G'~y E. Decker Chief Engineer GED/MA:cp Enclosure Mason ond Cannon 200 TOWNE CENTIME ~ROFESSIONAL BUILDING March 21I 1989 Mr. Douglas D. Reid 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. Sincerel/y, WILLIAM S. CANNON WSC :dh CC: Mary Centrullo CHUI,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 ° 619 425-9600 BOARD OF E~CATIOH DR J~EPH O CUMMINGS OPALFULLER SHARON GILES JUDYSCHULENBERG F~NKA. TARANTINO March 20, 1989 SUPERI~ENDENT ~AR 2 2 1989 ROBERTJ~CARTHY 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 ADMINISTRATION CENTER t130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 920]1 (619) 691-5553 March 20, 1989 Mr. Douglas D. Reid ~m~ ~ ~ Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chu]a Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: 1S-89-63 WOODCREST 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 whlch could be used to bulld new permanent classroom space. To accommodate lesser sized projects, those whlch are over 50 units and less than 200 units, an annexable Mello-Roos, Community Facilities District ~5, has been established. The annexation of WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO 1nfo 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.~J~ctfully, T~omas ~ilva~-~'~- Director of Planning TS/sly Enclosure cc: Kate Shurson Biggs Engineering Corp. 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. Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. Fullerton Savings & Loan Association List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Seine as "1" above 2. If any persoq 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 Wooderest Development of San Dieqo~ 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 × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartne~rship, joint venture, association, soc--6~-{~[ 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 combina~i~/~ acti~g as--a unit.~ S i~jnat~r~o fapp Tica-nt/date ' ~ Ronal~/J7 Van Daele, Vice Pre.,ident WPC 0701~ Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. A-I 10 Frin% or ~[]y?, name ~cant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-89-13 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Serena Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13 Brehm Communities A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Serena Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13, in order to develop a five-lot condominium project consisting of 147 units on 9.53 acres at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. 2. The Planning Commission previously adopted EIR-87-1, which includes the entire Rancho del Rey SPA I including the site in question. 3. The project design was approved by the Design Review Committee on July 27, 1989. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Serena Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall show compliance with the City's Growth Management Element and Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 3. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Otay Water District to provide terminal water storage and other major facilities to assure water availability to the project prior to the approval of a final map. 4. PAD and RCT shall be paid except as otherwise modified by the public facilities and financing plan for Rancho del Rey. 5. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of agreement with the Chula Vista City School District regarding the provision of adequate school facilities for the project prior to the approval of a final map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 2 6. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements for the private street as shown on the Tentative Map. 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, fire hydrants and transitions. Design of the private street shall conform to City standards for private streets. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of said street shall be reflected in improvement plans for said development. 7. 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. 8. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving 10 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. 9. The developer shall grant a general utility and access easement over the private street to the City. 10. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. ll. 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. 12. An improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided to all sanitary sewer manholes and cleanouts. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including cleanouts and inlet or outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 13. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI. 14. The design of all improvements shall conform to City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Standard Drawings and City standards. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 3 15. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. 16. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual units for all franchised cable television companies. 17. The private drive at Buena Vista Way shall conform to City standards for intersection sight distance. 18. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road or East "H" Street exceeds the levels of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds. 19. The subject property is wi thin the boundaries of Assessment District 87-1. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with reapportionment of assessments as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. 20. The owner shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. C. DISCUSSION The RdR SPA I Plan designates the property for multiple family development at a target density of 15.4 du/ac and a maximum yield of 162 units. The property to the north is slated for a community park, and a proposed church site is located to the west across Buena Vista Way. The Eucalyptus Ridge condominiums are located directly to the east, with single family dwellings to the south across East "H" Street. The site has previously been graded in conjunction with the RdR mass grading program. It sits below the level of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way, and some 50 ft. above the community park site to the north, a landscaped berm under the jurisdiction of an open space maintenance district separates the property from East "H" Street. Development of the site is subject to precise plan approval by the Design Review Committee. The project involves 147 townhouse units in two and three-unit structures served by a system of private drives with a single access point off Buena Vista Way. The llO 2-story units, which range from 1,200-1,600 sq. ft., will each have a 2-car garage and private fenced yard. The remaining 37 units are 990 sq. ft., second-story carriage units which will have a 1-car garage and balcony. An additional 67 spaces of open parking is also provided. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 4 A central open space area with pool is provided adjacent to the divided project entryway off Buena Vista Way. Additional landscaping is provided in pockets along the private drives and also within buffers along both abutting streets. The proposal also includes a decorative fencing program, including view fencing along the northerly boundary. Patio standards and designs will be submitted for staff approval. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Serena Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 89-13, 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 residential type and density proposed is consistent with the adopted RdR SPA I Plan. b. Circulation - Circulation consists of private drives consistent with City standards. A single access point off Buena Vista Way will minimize traffic conflicts. c. Housing - The project will provide an attached townhouse product as one of several housing alternatives within the RdR community. d. Conservation The conservation of major land forms and environmentally sensitive areas was addressed by the ERdR Specific Plan and RdR SPA Plan. This project is consistent with those plans. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space The overall park/recreation/open space program was established by the ERdR and RdR Plans. This project is consistent with those plans. f. Seismic Safety - Mitigation measures relating to slope stability and grading identified in the environmental document for the SPA Plan have been incorporated into the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 5 g. Safety The project will be within existing or proposed response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to approval of final maps. h. Noise - All dwelling units will be designed so as not to exceed interior noise levels of 45 dBA. A berm along the southerly boundary provides noise attenuation from traffic on East "H" Street. i. Scenic Highway - A significant landscape buffer is proposed along East "H" Street. j. Bicycle Routes - All of the major roads within RdR have been designed to accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings - The RdR SPA Plan and Public Facilities and Financing Plan include provisions for the dedication and improvement and/or contributions for various public facilities including school sites, parks, fire facilities, and libraries. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. To the extent feasible the structures have been sized and sited in a manner to provide for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 6631P/2659P PROJ~ECT AREA 0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~iNT /A??LICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLI£ATIONS ~WHIC}t WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON TltE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ]COMHISSION 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. RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP BREHM COMMUNITIES List the names of all persons having any ownersilip interest in the property involved. RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP BREHM CO~MUNITIES 2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of ali individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning aris partnership interest in the partnership. McMILLIN CO~MUNITIES, lng. HOME CAPITAL CORP. FORR~ST W. ~RE~hM 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. ~/A 4. Uave you had more titan $250 worth of business transacted with any menlber of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_. NO_x If yes, please indicate person(s) iis. defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnershi , 'otnt ye , ' .s?c.~al c, lub, fraternal organization, cornoratio- ~oP ~ .... ntu,re, assoc~ation, cn~s ana any other county ~i~ .... ~ ~_,~ · ,,,,.~ ..... ,..~u~, receiver, syndicate, no~tti~a1 ~,,~.;_~ ~, ~ ,~ ~.u ~uunLy, cl~y, mun~c~pality, dlstric or othpr [ ~ · o~-u,v,~un, or any other group or combination acting ,,s a unit." t ....... (NOTE: Attach a dd~ttonal pages as necessary.)~,a~~~ WPC 0701P A-] ]O Stephen D. Hardison, Brehm Communities Pr n or ype nanle o app]~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-89-12 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12 - Gold Key Development A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, proposing to subdivide 2.31 acres located on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, including an existing house at 66 Telegraph Canyon Road and extending easterly approximately 600 ft., into 9 single family lots. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-74, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-74. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-74. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, subject to the following conditions: a. The panhandle area shall be reduced to two lots with contoured grading along the southeasterly boundary subject to staff review and approval. b. The dwellings shall be resited and/or the floor plans or lot lines adjusted in order to provide adequate, usable yard space for each lot subject to staff review and approval. Sideyards meeting this requirement shall have a minimum dimension of 15 ft. C&CR's shall be recorded with a city being a party thereto, prohibiting future building construction within the 15' sideyard. Said construction may exclude patios with an open trellis design approved by the City. c. Fully automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in the "panhandle" dwellings subject to approval of the Fire Marshal. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 2 d. The approval of a final map by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. e. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of street improvements in Telegraph Canyon Road as shown on the Tentative Map. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to asphalt pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, street lights, sanitary sewer, fire hydrants and potable water facilities. Required improvements shall be installed along the entire subdivision frontage and shall extend to the existing concrete curb easterly of the property. f. The developer shall dedicate to the City additional right-of-way along the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road adjacent to the subdivision as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. g. The private access drive off Telegraph Canyon Road shall meet City standards for intersection sight distance. h. The developer shall provide a concrete low flow channel in the tributary water course at the rear of Lots 2 and 3 unless the City Engineer determines that such a channel is not necessary. A drainage study shall be submitted to demonstrate the adequacy of the channel and to demonstrate that the channel is compatible with upstream improvements. i. Side slopes in the major drainage channel shall be no steeper than 2:1 Ihorizontal to vertical ratio) unless approved by the City Engineer. j. Access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including low flow channels adjacent to back of lots. The form and type of access is to be approved by the City Engineer. k. The property owner shall grant an easement to the City to provide for maintenance of the major Telegraph Canyon Channel. Said easement shall be granted on the Final Subdivision Map. 1. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended). m. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work requiring said off-site grading. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 3 n. The developer shall grant to the City a street tree planting and maintenance easement along Telegraph Canyon Road. Said easement shall extend from the property line to a line 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk. o. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. p. Plans for the bridge providing access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. Said bridge shall be capable of allowing a lO0-year storm flow to pass without obstructing said flow. C. DISCUSSION Existing site characteristics. The property is an irregularly-shaped site which fronts on Telegraph Canyon Road and is bounded by single family homes to the south, east and west, and Hilltop Junior High School to the north. The site and surrounding areas are zoned R-1. An existing single family dwelling occupies the westerly portion of the property. The site has approximately 600 ft. of frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road, with an average depth of over lO0 ft. and a maximum depth of 250 ft. at the easterly portion of the property. An unimproved drainage way traverses the length of the property approximately 75 ft. back from the street frontage. The abutting single family homes to the south and east are generally elevated well above the site with the exception of two homes which adjoin the southeasterly extension of the property. Tentative map. The tentative map shows 9 lots, 6 with frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road, and 3 lots on the southeasterly extension of the property served by a private drive. The drainage channel would be improved and a bridge would be constructed at the easterly boundary to provide access to the 3 panhandle lots. The average lot size is over 9,000 sq. ft. with only one lot below 7,000 sq. ft. ' The site plan shows the construction of 8 dwellings in addition to the existing dwelling which will remain on the most westerly lot. The dwellings are all two-story plans with 3-car garages, with the exception of two of the "panhandle" dwellings which show 2-car garages. The dwellings along the street frontage are planned with wider sideyards in order to compensate for the channel and resulting lack of usable rearyards. The 3 panhandle lots are served by 5 guest parking spaces. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 4 D. ANALYSIS All of the lots meet the dimensional standards of the R-1 zone, and there are no requested deviations from the underlying R-1 development standards. Two concerns are with the development of the panhandle area, and the provision of usable yard space. The panhandle area is the steepest portion of the site and requires extensive earthwork. This results in a series of manufactured slopes and retaining walls, and a severely constrained site plan with regard to access, parking, and the interface with the abutting dwellings to the south and east. We have recommended that this area be limited to only two lots subject to staff review and approval, including provision for contoured grading of the southeasterly slopes. Several of the lots have limited usable yard area. We do not oppose the substitution of an ample sideyard for rearyard space, but we believe such an area should provide a minimum dimension of 15 ft. This would require resiting the dwellings and/or adjustments to the floor plans or lot lines. We have recommended any adjustments be subject to staff review and approval with the further intent to retain privacy for adjoining dwellings. E. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The proposal as conditioned is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low-Medium Residential {3-6 du/ac), and General Plan policies related to grading and landform. b. Circulation - Telegraph Canyon Road and the private drive shall be improved in accordance with City Standards. The reduction of one lot in the panhandle area will improve circulation for those lots. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 23, 1989 Page 5 c. Housing The project shall provide single family, detached housing consistent with that in the immediate area. d. Conservation - The biologic component of the site is not unique and does not contain threatened or endangered species. There are no significant impacts with regard to wildlife habitat, soils or ground water. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project shall be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to approval of a final map. f. Seismic Safety - No faults or landslides are known to exist on the project site. the La Nacion Fault Zone, located approximately 800 feet west of the property, has little potential as a source for a damaging earthquake. g. Safety - The project site is within threshold standards for both police and fire protection, the panhandle dwellings will be equipped with indoor sprinkler systems in lieu of adequate access for fire equipment. h. Noise - The site is not subject to adverse noise impacts. i. Scenic Highway - The property does not adjoin a scenic route or gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - The property does not adjoin a designated bike route. k. Public Buildings - The project is subject to the payment of school impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. The general orientation of the dwellings is conducive to passive and natural heating opportunities. The wide sideyards will allow for natural cooling to a greater extent than typically found. WPC 6640P/2659P pROJECT ARE T F.. L.F..G R ~Pt4 C negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Sun-Up Vista PROJECT LOCATION: 0.2 Mil es east of Hill top Drive on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road PROJECT APPLICANT: Gold Key Development 4904 North Harbor Drive, Suite 202 San Diego, California 92106 CASE NO: IS-89-74 DATE: August 10, 1989 A. Project Setting The 2.31 acre project site is found on rolling terrain astride an existing improved drainage channel. On site elevation ranges from approximately 145 feet on the northwest to a maximum of 175 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the southeastern portion of the site. Telegraph Canyon Road borders the site on the north and serves as frontage for lots 4 through 9. Average natural slope is approximately 8%; maximum natural slope is approximately 20% on the southeastern portion of the site. The project site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation and unnamed undifferentiated near shore marine sandstone, characterized by poorly consolidated, fine- to medium-grained fossiliferous sandstone. No faults or landslides are known to exist on project site, although the La Nacion Fault Zone is located approximately 800 feet west of the property. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, located some 44 to 68 miles, respectively, north-northeast of the property have the greatest potential as a source for damaging earthquakes. The Olivenhain and Salinas so~l series are represented on the project site. The Olivenhain soil series has developed on marine terraces and exhibits a loamy texture within a cobbly matrix. The Salinas soil series exhibits clay loam texture and has a moderate to severe expansive potential. Vegetation occurring onsite is a mixture of naturally occurring chaparral species and native and introduced weedy species. The site is currently vacant, with uses limited to passive open space functions and for storm drainage. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project include single family residential development to the south, east and west. School recreation fields are located to the north across Telegraph Canyon Road Zoning for the site and surrounding residential areas is R-1. city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF environmental review section CHUIA VISTA B.k~ro3tct Description ,~ .- .--'-~. ~ . The proposed project consists of a subdivision of the 2.31 acre parcel into g separate building lots. Lots 1 through 3 are located across the concrete channel; access will be provided by a bridge and 20 foot wide private drive. Lots 4 through 9 will enjoy access from frontage with Telegraph Canyon Road. Lot 9 will retain an existing two-story single family residence. Site grading necessary to develop the project site includes the placement of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill material. The maximum cut will be 8 feet although the project average is only 3 feet. Average fill depths are approximately 5 feet with a maximum of l0 feet on lot 2. Hook-up to utilities will require the extension of gas lines, tie-in to sewer and water located on Telegraph Canyon Road. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Current zoning for the project site is R-1. This zone is intended for single-family residential uses and allows for the construction of one single-family dwelling per legal lot. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The proposed Sun-Up Vista development is within 1 mile of the nearest fire station, Station 2 located a 80 E. "J" Street. Response times for emergency calls would be 5 minutes, which is less than the required 7 minutes necessary to meet Threshold Standards. This area also would enjoy response from Station 1, located at 447 "F" Street and Station 3 located at 266 E. Oneida Street. The proposed driveway for lots l, 2, and 3 is inadequate for Fire Department access. The Fire Department allows alternatives for these situations where indoor sprinkler systems may be used in lieu of access requirements. The applicant has elected to equip all dwellings which are greater than 120 feet from the nearest access point with indoor sprinkler systems. The project will also require the installation of one additional fire hydrant. 2. Police The City of Chula Vista Police Department was contacted and indicated that service could be provided for the proposed development. 3. Traffic Access to the proposed project would be off of Telegraph Canyon · Road, The proposed project would impact area streets with the addition of approximately 80 average daily trips (ADT). The ADT on Telegraphy Canyon Road would be expected to increase from the existing 3,720 ADT to 3,800 ADT. The level of service at area intersections and roadways would not be significantly reduced. The City Engineer is requiring street improvements along the eastern half of the project. The distance from the Center Line of Telegraph Canyon Road to the face of the curb shall be constructed to a full 26 foot width. No parking will be allowed on Telegraph Canyon Road. Park/Recreation The proposed project is located west of 1-805. Therefore the City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards do not apply. 5. Drainage Portions of the proposed project lie within the 100 year flood plane of the concrete swale which disect$ the project site. The concrete swale is adequate to handle runoff from the 100 year storm. All building sites are above the 100 year flood level. 6. Sewer The desired sewer service connection for the project would be through a connection with a 21 inch sewer main located beneath Telegraph Canyon Road. The proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 6,000 gallons per day of liquid wastes. Sewer service for the site is adequate for the designs of the proposed project. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority was contacted in regards to water service. They indicated that the project was within their service area and that service could be provided. 8. School s The project would increase school enrollment in area schools. The following table shows the projected increases that may be expected from this project: Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elem. Cook 465 465 4.8 Jr. High Chula Vista 1338 1430 2.4 _ Sr. High Chula Vista 1874 1836 1.6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, school impact fees of $1.56 per square foot must be paid. $.69 is divided between the Elementary and Junior High Schools. E. Identification of Environmental Effects Biology Pacific Southwest Biological Services was retained to prepare a biological report of the site. The following discussion is a summary of the biological report. The biological report is included as ATTACHMENT B. Natural vegetation on-site consists of a vestigial of native shrubs including about a dozen Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis); several Toyon {Heteromeles arbutifolia), Flat-Top Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides); and a lone Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Other native vegetation occurring on site consists of an assemblage of native weeds attracted to the residential water-runoff. The primary vegetation on the property consists of invasive, non-native grasses and non-native weedy species. The birds utilizing the area for foraging are typical of similar urban locales with numerous Mourning Doves, House Finches, Starlings, and Mockingbirds. Two common migrants were seen: Western Wood Peewee and the Hooded Oriole. The presence of reptile and mammal fauna is presumed to minimal, due to the isolation of the habitat and urban setting. Geology - As a result of concerns raised by neighbors, the applicant was required to provide the City with an evaluation of soil conditions. Dilks & Associates was contracted to prepare an investigation of soil suitability for residential construction. This report found that although large amounts of trash occurred within the top layers of soil material, all soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they can be adequately cleaned of trash and debris. The Preliminary Soils Investigation for: Chula Vista Tract No. 89-12 (Sun-Up Vista) is included as ATTACHMENT B. Groundwater - Neighbors also indicated that a naturally occurring spring was located on the project site. The "Preliminary Soils Report" investigated this possibility. The report states that "No groundwater was observed in test pits" and that "groundwater would not be expected to adversely affect the performance of the structures provided that it does not rise above the inundation elevation of 150 as shown on the Tentative Map" (See ATTACHMENT B). F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation is necessary to avoid significant impacts. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact The biologic component of the site is not unique and does not contain threatened or endangered species. Due to the sites isolation and location i~_a~an set~n~ _!~s.?~]_u~ a_w?dlife habitat is minimal. Soils - Soils on the site are suitable for construction of the proposed project. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered on the proposed project site. Groundwater would not be expected to adversely affect the development of the site. H. Cohabitation ....... - l-T- Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Warren R. Coalson, Zucker Systems Scott Kube, Nasland Engineering 2. Documents · City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Threshold Standards Sun-Up Vista Environmental Initial Study bilks & Associates Preliminary Soil Investigation for Sun-Up Vista Pacific Southwest Biological Services Biological Report fob Sun-Up Vista This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~VlEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 6586P/O175P city of Chula vista planning department O~'Of environmental review lactlon. CHULA VISTA FOR OFFICE Case No. Fee .......... INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec' d City of Chula Vista Accepted b~ · ,~- Application Form Project No.- A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE SUN-UP VISTA SUBDIVISION 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 0.2 MILES EAST OF HILLTOP DR]IVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD - - · Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.575-060-06~07 3. .~EF _P~OJECT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPE VACANT AREA INTO A 9 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTS; ONE SUCH HOME EXISTS ON LOT 9 AND WILL REMAIN. 4. Name of Applicant NASLAND ENGINEERING Address 4740 RUFFNER STREET Phone (619) 292-7770 City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92111 5. Name of Preparer/Agent NASLAND ENGINEERING Address 4740 RUFFNER STREET Phone (619) 292-7770 City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92111 Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: __General Plan Revision __ Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning x Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan --Grading Permit -- Design Review Board __ Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance --Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). __Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report __ Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan __ Photos of Site & __ Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan __Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment _ __ Specific Plan __ Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or __ Soils Report --Other Approvals Required EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage ~.3~ ...... ~j- If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 0.05 ACRES IS TO BE DEDICATED TO R/W OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type devefopmj~i- ~injie family x Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium~ bF- ~SJ~ J~ SErUctures Jnd heights 8 TWo STORY HONES MAXIMLN I~IGHT OF 25 FEET. c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms- -~ ~§~ -~ "4 ~r0~ms Total units 8 d. Gross density (DU/totai acres) 0.2~ e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 0.22 f.. Estimated PrOject population 28 g. Estimated sale or rental price range $1~0,000.00 h. Square footage of floor ar~a(s) ' ~500 TO 1800 SF. i. Percent 0~ l~t Coverage by buildings or structures 13 TO 19% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 6% 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - ..... h~-'~stimated range of service area and basis of estimate i/ Type/extent df operations not in enclosed buildings j. 'Hours of Operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential,.commercial or industmtal._ com~tet¢ tbJ~_ section a. Type Of project b. Type of facilities provided . c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occ:upancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. NONE 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated YES (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? NONE b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 10~000 C.Y. c. How much area Isq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 73t900 S0. FT. d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 8 FT. Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill 6 FT. Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are Part. of the proposed project~and~the tylenol-energy ~sed~air condition' a~j~liance, heatinQ eouinm~nt AIR CO~FT~'N(~ZWA+ER['~-~CL~S[_L. ~_~_~ APPLIANCES HF-A--T[N¥-~D 4. Indicate ~he-amount-~natura~:open space that is par~~ 6T-~e-~roject (sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities ~6~C~ibe the nature and type of these jobs. NONE 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or Stored within the project site? NO 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day~ ~i!l be generated by the project? 8. Describe (if. any) of-f-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connedtion ~6-the-~roject 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~icycle fa~iities' D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. _~ology Has a geology study'been-conducted on the property? NO (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) NO 2. Hydrolog~ Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? YES, TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? YES, TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK FLOWS THROUGH -5- c~.,, Dpes~runo~f fr~m'the project site drain directly into or toward a d~mest~c, water supply, lake, reservoi'r~r bay? Coold drai-nage-fromthe site cause erosion or siltatio~ t° adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location, l~dO lx~kTURAJ_ TRAPAZIONAL CHANNELS WITH S~LL C~CRETE 3. C LS. a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project ~ite :.,.:.or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or : -. adjacent land uses? NO ' 4. Biology a, Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Indicate type, size and quahtity of' trees on the site and which b. (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. P~st Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? NONE KNOWN b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NONE 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existino on the project site. ONE EXISTING HOUSE ON SITE, THE REST OF-THE LAND IS VACANT AND HAS A SMALL CONCRETE CH~NEL FLOWING THRU IT. - 6 - b. Descri:be.al!~structures and land ~es currently ex~sting on ~a~Jace~t property -:~ Ner~h--~CHOOL South RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE F~qILY HO~V~S East RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAhIILY West RESIDENTIAL -~ S~NGLE F~IC¥-NC6iES 7. Social a. Are t~e~e any residen{s on site? ~f so, how many?) ONE FAMILY b. Are thereany current employment-opportunities ~n site? (If so, how many and what type?) NO Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. ~ 7 - E. CERTIFICATION (~'~ner/owner in escrow* or Consultant o? Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that'to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact.and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: 1~, I North .... ~ . .South East ...... West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: I0~/ JJ~L%[]~ Is~he p~oject 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? Si~_ iS .,50~ ~ _, l~mj~S~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? . ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista. ) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown ~n the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current pamk acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? ,(2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to a~yjineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -g- 3. .School s ~f the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated ---~ ........... School Attendance Capacity From Project 4. Xesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variapce from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If 5. Energy Consumption _ . Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ~1~ Kwh/~ Natural Gas (per year).' . ~ ann~ ng or~sentat~ ve ~'ate -10- G. ~NGINEERI~,~G D£PARTMENT ' ---~ :'' . a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~e~, b. Will the project be subject.to any existing flooding hazards~ c. Will the project create any]flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site ....... ~d~ainage facilities? e. ~-~ ~,~y aoequa:e to serve ~he project? ...... f-'--~b~-.i~ ~he location ~nd-de~cripti~n of--existin off, s~ ~. Are they adequate to serve the project? _. 2. ~ranspor~ation a. ~at roads provide primary acce~ to the project? b. ~hat ~ 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 L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? ~'~'S If so, specify the general nature of the necessar~-a~Qns. Case No. 3;, _Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Know__~n oZ suspecte__~d fa_~ulL _ hazards~ ~ ~ ' Liquefaction?, b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project7 ~ 4. Soi F ................................ a. A~e there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project ~:: b. ~,_ r dve .s _ d c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form .: a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site? ~/~ ~' b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~ Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? Case No. 7. Air O~ality '" If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle ................. ~rips ................ Emission .... Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution CO SO X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons ~o ~ t-8,3 · - '2 .... NOx (NO2) .. ~0 X 20.0 : PartiCulates ~0 ~ l .5 : 8. ~A~fe Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project-per--d~y? ~{hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~' , Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? · - 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures Cit~' En~nder - 13- Case No. /_S H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is. the distance to the nearest fire station 'and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? I 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? f ~ 3. Remarks /. /)~,~' ~-'~1 ~,~c ,~ ~,~,~..( ~,~ Marshal -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood 2. I~ not, ~ p~rkianff-~.cations~nr_~g~ion ~nsed _~s p~Lof t~ projec[~eouate~o ser~e ~ p~lati~ J~crease~ Community parks / 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established bs C~t~Counc~l .policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative ~" 84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619 425-9600 BO~D OF £D~A~ON JOSE~ O. CU~IN~, S~R~ GILES ~TR~K ~JUDD - #dOY SCH~SERG FRANK~TARANT~ April: 20, 1989 ... APR 2 4 1989 ~PERI~ENDE~ .. NF~ Doug Reid Environmenta~ Review Coordinator Cf~y of Chula Vista ' 2~ Fourth Avenue ' _ RE: Case No: IS-89-74 : Applicant: Nasland Engineering Location: 0.2 Miles East of Hilltop Drive on South Side of Telegraph Canyon Road Project: Develope Vacant Area Into 9 Lot Subdivision :- for SFD Dear Mr. Reid: Schools in the Chula Vista City School .District are at capacity and the District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two years. Students are being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation. The District also utilizes busing to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is in the Cook School attendance area, a facility which is currently overcrowded. A developer fee of 67¢ per square foot (69¢ effective June 4, 1989) of habitable living space is currently being charged to help provide facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, late Shurson Director of Plannin9 IS:dp Soutl;west Biological Services -- Post office Box,985, :Nation~i City, California 92050 (619) 477.5333 6 June 1989 Mr. Ken E. Green 3045 Rosecrans #205 San Diego, California 92107 PSBS #668 Dear Mr. Green: A biological survey of your 2.31 acre property on Telegraph Canyon Road east of Hilltop Drive revealed a heavily disturbed urban field habitat with no significant biological resources. The investigation was conducted by our biologist, Craig H. Reiser, on June 1, 1989. The vestigial native shrubs remaining on the site consist of approximately a dozen Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis); several Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Flat-Top Buckwheat (Etiogoumn fasciculatum), Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides); and a lone Elderberry (Sambttcus mexicana). Along the concrete lined channel which crosses the property from east to west is a meagre scattering of native weeds attracted to the residential water-~ runoff. In the shallow silt above the concrete grow Ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), one WilloW Sinart~ed-d '(Pdrsicitila lapathifolium), several Mexican Tea plants (Chenopodium ambrosioides), and a 1' by 5' swathe of Tule Cat-Tail (Typha domingensis) with its diagnostic narrow flowering stalks. No other native plants were found on site. The primary vegetation on the property consists of invasive, non-native elements with a predominance of Castor Bean (Ricbtus communis). Other conspicuous weeds include Giant Cane (Antndo donax), Wild Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus), Giant Sunflower (Helianthus atmuus), Fennel (Foenicuh#n vulgare), Peruvian Pepper (Schbms molle), and Cocklebur (Xanthhtm stnt,tatiu,t ). Nonmative grasses present are Wild Oat (Arena barbara), Rabbits-foot (Polypogon monspeliensis) in the drainage channel, Italian Ryegrass (Lolittm mttltiflontm), Millet Ricegrass (Oryzopsis miliacea), and Red Brome (Bromus rubens). The remaining, largely Eurasian, annual plants on the site are Yellow Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum corottatiutn), Austr',dian Saltbush (Attiplex semibaccata), Wild Mustard (Brassica getticulata), Wild Radish (Raphanus sativus), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Scarlet Pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), Bur Clover (Medicago polymorpha), Curly Dock (Rumecc ctispus), Stinking Gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima), Wild Lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Indian Sweet Clover (Melilotus indicus), Cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and the ubiquitous Russian Thistle (Salsola attstralis). The birds utilizing the area for foraging are typical of similar urban locales with numerous Mourning Doves (Zenaida macrottra), a large flock of House Finches (Carpodacus mexicamts), Starlings (S[lll7nt$ vnlgaris), and several Mockingbirds (Mimuspolyglottos) all sighted. Two common migrants were seen: a solitary Western Wood Peewee (Coutopus sordiduhts) and both a male and female Hooded Oriole ([ctents cttcttllaltts). Given the isolation of the habitat and urban setting, the reptile and mammal fauna is presumed to be minimah House cats were noted roaming the small site and only the common House Mouse (]~ltts muscttltts) and possibly the Norwegian Rat (Rattus non,egicns) are expected. In the cement channel the Common Tree Frog (Hyla regilla) may be occasional. Mr. Ken Green 2 6 June 1989 PSBS #668 In summary, no sensitive plants or animals were seen, nor are any expected, on the property. Given the dearth of native resources, no biological recommendations are made for the proposed project which involves no significant, adverse biological impacts. Sincerely, R. Mitchel Beauchamp ~' Principal Consultant stl - Enc}osed: Vicinity Map PSBS #~ FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP USGS 7.5' NATIONAL CITY QUADRANGLE - ' , '- -" - -8AY 2~ 1989 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT [cWPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHI~ INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATION~ ICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE*PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING OMMISSION 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. GEP, MINI~O F. TUE~qO ~GELES M. TUBAO List the P~e~of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. C-ERMI~I~O F; TUBAO AJqGELES M. TUBAO 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust,, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) ~i~ ~efi?d.~:. "Any i~di~!du'~T, firm, copartner~oint venture, associa ' . )sg?a~ c,uo, rra~erna! organization, corporation, estate,, trust, receiver, syndtJj~, ~th!~..and any other county, city and county, ~ity, municipality, district or ~political subdi~ any oth_~er group or. combina~on~it.~!~ (~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~ ~ S~hature applicant/date WPC 0701P BLAIR A.~ )LL, FOR iN~NSI~AND ENGINEERING A-110 ~rint or ty)e name of applicant