Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/06/14 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 14, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 10 and May 31, 1989 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. Consideration of Extension of P-79-013 and PCC-86-34M: Request for a one-year extension to operate an auto recycling yard at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - Carole and John Marquez 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-J: Proposal to rezone certain territory generally bounded by 'L' Street on the north, Broadway on the west, Orange Avenue on the south, and Hilltop Drive on the east, from its City adopted (County-zoning) classifications to the City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista - City Initiated 3. 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) 4. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-86-4, EastLake Greens AGENDA -2- June 14, 1989 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-7: Consideration of EastLake II General Development Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Public Facilities and Financing Plan - EastLake Development Company 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-3: Consideration of Tentative Residential Subdivision Map for EastLake Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-3 EastLake Development Company OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of June 21, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Extension of P-79-013 and PCC-86-34M; request for a one-year extension to operate an auto recycliD9 yard' at 3513 and 3517 Main Street - Carole and John Marquez A. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the meeting of May 24, 1989, Planning Commission meeting due to unresolved procedural issues. These issues are still pending and have not been resolved. It is anticipated that an answer to the outstanding issues will be found before the next Commission meeting. B. RECOMMENDATION Continue this hearing until the meeting of June 28, 1989. WPC 6350P ~EET ANCURZA BRITTGN 'ST. JOHN & CAROL MARQUEZ CATOR P79-O 13 PCC-86-34M 3513 & 3517 MAIN STREET City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 198g Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-J Proposal to rezone certain territory. generally bounded by "L" Street on the north, Broadway on the west, Orange Avenue on the south, and Hilltop Drive on the east, from i ts Ci ts adopted (County-zoning) classifications to 'the City classifications utilized throughout Uhula Vista - City i ni ti ated. A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the reclassification of a portion of the Castle Park "A" subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by "L" Street on the north, Broadway on the west, Orange Avenue on the south, and Hilltop Drive on the east. Specifically, this request will convert the existing County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: Between "L" Street and Oxford RMH to R-3-G RU29 to C-C-P RU29 to R-3 RS 7 to R-l-7 S90 to R-l-7 C36 to C-C-P South of Oxford RU29 to R-3 RU29 to R-l-7 RU29 to C-O-P RV15 to R-1-5-P RV15 to R-l-7 RS7 to R-l-7 S86 to C-C-P C36 to C-C-P C36 to R-3-P-9 C36 to C-T-P C36 to R-l-7 Please refer to Exhibit "A" for precise locations of reclassification proposal s. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-4M, of the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on the City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 2 attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M. 3. On May 3, 1989, t~ Mnntgomery Planning Committee unanimously accepted staff recommendations as noted above. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". C. DISCUSSION Adjacent ~on. in9 and land use. North R1, C-C along Third Ave. Single family residential and C-C along Broadway commercial South Mixture of zones including Mixture of uses generally C36 along Broadway RMH, consistent with zoning RV15, RU29, C36 along Third Avenue East Predominantly R1 Predominantly sinqle-family West C36 along Broadway, RS7 Commercial along Broadway and along Fourth Avenue single family residential Existing site characte[isticq. The project area is almost entirely improved with a mixture of single family residential, multiple family residential, and commercial uses along Third Avenue. In addition to these, the San Diego Country Club is a major improvement within the area. Furthermore, within the project area are two Special Study Areas, one adjacent to Rice Elementary School just west of Third Avenue which is designated Parks and Open Space and consists of an existing natural drainage course; and secondly, the Oxford Street Special Study Area. Both will not be considered at this time for reclassification. They will be analyzed by staff to determine the ultimate land use designations for these areas. When completed with that review, public hearings will be held at the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and City Council. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 3 General plan. This Castle Park area of the Montgomery Specific Plan is designated as follows: 1. Mercantile and Office Commercial along Broadway and Third Avenue 2. High Density Residential (18 to 27 dwelling units per acre) along much of the Fourth Avenue frontage extending south of the Rice Elementary School through Palomar Str~- In addition, this high density residential designation exists for much of the area bounded by Oxford, Fifth Av - alomar and Broadway. 3. Low Density Residential (3 to 6) dwelling units per acre for that area bounded by Oxford Street, Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and Palomar Street. In addition, all of that area south of Palomar between Palomar and Orange and west of Fourth Avenue is designated within this land use designation. The area east of Third Avenue on either side of Quintard, Morehouse Place, Preston and E1 Luqar Streets are also designated low-medium residential. 4. The San Diego Country Club is designated Parks and Open Space. 5. As mentioned above, two Special Study Areas are within this subcommunity including the Oxford Street special study area and the natural drainage course just south of the Rice Elementary School. Based on these land use desig-ations, staff is recommending zone reclassifications consistent with the above described land use designations. More specifically, that involves: 1. The areas designated High Density Residential would be classified from RU29 to R-3 and RMH to R-3-G. 2. The areas designated Mercantile and Office Commercial would be designated C-C-P along Third Avenue and C-T-P along Broadway. Along Third Avenue that involves reclassifying parcels from the C36, S86, and RU29 zones to the C-C-P zone. Along Broadway that involves reclassification from the County C36 zone to the C-T-P zone. There is an area designated commercial just east of the Lauderbach Park which is 290 feet south of Oxford which will 6e reclassified from RU29 to C-O-P. 3. The areas designated Low/Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwellinq units per acre) would be reclassified to the R-l-7 and the R-1-5-P zones. That involves reclassifying existing county zoning RS?, RV15, C36, and RU29 areas to the R-l-7 zone. The area presently zoned RU~9 is the church adjacent to the Oxford Street special study area and that area is proposed for reclassification to R-l-?. That site is actually designated Institutional on the Montgomery Specific Plan. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Paqe 4 In addition to the above, the area bounded by Palomar and Orange Avenue just east of Broadway which is zoned C36 and designated Low/Medium Density Residential will be recommended for reclassification to the R-3-P-9 zoning. Finally, the area directly east of the Palomar High School known as parcel number 618-303-15 will be recommended for reclassification to the R-1-5-P zone. 4. The area designated Parks and Open Space is recommended for reclassification from RS90 to R-l-7. This is the San Diego Country Club. 5. As stated above, there are two Special Study Areas which are not recommended for reclassification at this time. Those will be handled under a separate proposal that will be before the Commission in the future. D. ANALYSIS There are several factors which support the rezoning described above. 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone reclassifications are primarily proposed to implement that specific plan. Implementation of a zoning pattern in this subcommunity goes on to preserve existing single family neighborhoods as well as better defining the location of commercial and higher density residential development. Furthermore these rezonings use the preci-e plan modifying district on commercial parcels to protect and improve the character of commercial development along the major thoroughfares. 2. In the case of the San Diego Country Club, we have identified the R-l-? zone as the lowest density residential zone to translate the County zoning to the City zoning terminology. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates this property as Park and Open Space and because it is not publicly owned, it is being proposed to a designation that would keep any development in keeping with the residential character of the adjacent area. There is absolutely no proposal implied or actual that this property will redevelop in the near future and it is expressly the intent in the Montgomery Specific Plan that the property remain as a golf course. If that should change in the future, a specific plan amendment would be the appropriate means for reviewing not only an app-opriate land use designation but an ultimate zone for the property. 3. In the case of the property east of Fifth Avenue and north of Pal omar which is presently zoned RV15, it is proposed that this area be amended to the R-l-7 zone consistent with the land use designation of Low/Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/acre). This area is predominantly single family residential, although there is a ?l-unit apartment complex and a number of two-family residential units along City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 5 Shy Lane. Since most of the area surrounding this location is being proposed to the R-l-7 zone and since access, especially to the Shy Lane area, is less than adequate, staff believes that the R-l-7 zone is the best alternative for the orderly development of this area. 4. For the parcel (618-303-15) just east of Palomar Hiqh School proposed for the R-1-5-P zone, this site is impacted both by the existing school and frontage on Palomar Street. The site is large enough (2 acres) to allow comprehensive site planning to provide a transition from the high school on the west to the single family on the east and north. 5. For the area between Palomar and Orange Avenues just east of Broadway which is designated C36 and proposed to the R-3-P-9 zone, this area is designated Low/Medium Density Residential (3-6 du/acre). It is believed that the R-3-P-9 zone will provide an appropriate zone for the property owner to create a desirable project in keeping with the density limitations of the specific plan. Because the property does not front on Broadway and since the amount of commercial zoning along Broadway far exceeds the need within this community, staff is recommending that the C36 zone be eliminated and be replaced by the R-3-P-9 zone. 6. In all other cases except for those described above in numbers 2 through 4, the prooosed zoning is our best attempt to convert the adopted County zoning to the City zoning without adversely impacting the development capability of those properties. 7. On May 3, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee unanimously supported the above recommendations. WPC 6179P 3AN3A~ 0N0035 3A~ N3093 I( i I I ?It I II ,' ~ ENVIROI - WE T INC April 28, 1989 City of Chula Vista Chairman & Planning Committee Members 276 - 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: 1296 Third Avenue, NWC Palomar & Third Dear Commissioners & Planning Committee Members: With reference to the Notice of Public Hearing sent by the Montgomery Planning Committee regarding the implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. It is our position on this item, that given the nature of the properly which is owned by Palomar Investors, Ltd. any more restrictive development guidelines or conditional approval processes will severely affect the use and value of this property. We would support any zoning ordinance implementation so long as it coincides with previous County of San Diego designation of C-36. We would not; however, support any zoning implementation which would be more restrictive or would in essence be viewed as a down zone. To support our position on this matter, I think it is important that the City Council be aware that the particular property which we are dealing with in this case is under 25,000 s.f. on a prime commercial comer. Obviously, a premium price was paid for this property at the time it was purchased and still under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. Should any down zone of the property be implemented, this would impose a severe financial hardship on the property owners and our ability to operate this property. I have enclosed the use regulations for the County of San Diego C-36 zoned property for your review. Please consider this request in considering the future implementation of zoning changes. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosure ADDENDUM IS-88-4M MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART III May 6, 1988 1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required unless: a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. Because the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan has been the subject of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of implementation of the plan, a new initial study (IS-88-~6~? was required. It is the conclusion of the initial study that prior environmental review of the Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88-4M continues to accurately assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III. Previous Project The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. Proposed Project Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines. Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review. -2- Analysis 1. Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and w~itelands designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required at this time. 2. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas include: a. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. d. Transportation/Access Both Montgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenu~ to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. -3- e. Land Form/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of~'existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. Conclusion The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the project. . ENVIR~,IM£NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 5244P -4- negativ declaration-, PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly ~art of the City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Setting The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L" Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. -The subcommunities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. G~neralized existing land use is shown _ in Exhibit B of this report. Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres {3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgome~y and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within Hontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along Broadway, Hain Street and Third Avenue. city of chula vista planning department C~h, OF environmental review section. CHUIA VISTA Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is lO0 acres. There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. {These figures do not include 151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club for use as a golf course.) Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands. Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that currently permitted by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. B. Project Description The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon completion of that document. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns.= Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Groundwater/Drainage There are two areas which involve water courses as they fl ow through the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of this report. 1. Telegraph Canyon Creek The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of the Nontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J" Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year floodplain. The channelization project does not include properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and some areas which are not contained within a channel will continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space {west of Third Avenue subject to further study) anu private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain designation. In addition, since the special study area requires project specific environmental review to assess potential issues with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. 2. Otay River Valley The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial ana a small area north of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with industrial buildings under County regulations prior to annexation under development regulations requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage and industrial yards, intermixed with residential and c~mmercial uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties. The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County floodplain development regulations so that a permanent development pattern has already been established. The area south of iqain Street is proposed for Research and Industrial land uses subject to special study prior to designation of pemanent land uses. The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands determination studies, as well as development of a regional park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding designation pending resolution of 'complex environmental and jurisaictional land use issues. As such, no adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social Displacement There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street and Rios Avenue {Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del Nar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.) These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows. l) Brodericks Otay Acres The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential streets in combination with the use of private streets and drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single family uses. In May of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5 net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to return the designated land use to single family development with a density of no more than five dwellings per ac re. Since the proposed land use designation is in keeping with the existing land uses present and the circulation system available, and since there are no actual apartments developed within this subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur from this action. 2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and include scrapyards and auto dismantlin§ yards. The activities conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature and are subject to numerous conditions throu§h the use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from operation of these businesses. The propose~ land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. 3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus point for community civic and commercial activities within the area surrounOing the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street. This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus. Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of commercial land use designations along the east side of Third Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations would take place on properties which are currently residential in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing housing as an indirect result of development according to the plan. However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated as a special study area, and t~e text of the plan indicates that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive studies whic~ address socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning, and traffic issues." The special study area is structured so that commercial development on properties with existing residential uses is precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected. In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to further environmental study and must include these comprehensive stuoies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposed action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. Transportation/Access Among t~e proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the. proposals to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse environmental impact. Landform/Topography One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~oodlawn Park, is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further development of this area for single family residential uses as outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Given these standard development regulations, no significant and adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep topographic conditions at the plan stage. E. Project Modifications Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and whitelands designations, no mitigation is required. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas are listed as follows: A. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within th~s area ~nvolve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Transportation/Access The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hgllister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. Landform/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area. 3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified; there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively conservative. 4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Cbula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1987 4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 19B7 5) "Telegraph Canyon creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control aha Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152, 060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency, June 15, 1964 7) South Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Cbula Vista Grading Ordinance - 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista ~ . lO) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~ TAL RE~ ~ COORD I NATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) WPC 4242P/0175P ~__~f~ city of Chula vista planning department CI'IYOF environmental review section CHULAVISTA. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B 0 z z m< / / / I EXHIBIT C " ""/"-~ ~ FUR OFFICE USE Case No. IS-88-65M Fee _ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted b Application Form Project No.. ~/j.~-- ~,~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are desioned tn exe£ut~ nr ~ffpcfuatp Ihe plan. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista~ Planninq Department Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/~gent Daniel M. Pass~ Principal Planner and frank J. Herrera, Ass~§~an~ P~tnner Address Same as #4 vnone City State Zip Relation to Applicant Agent 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: ~ General Plan Revision Design Review Committee _ Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map - Annexation Precise Plan " Grading Permit Design Review Board X Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review' Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ~Noise Assessment ~ Specific Plan -' Improvement Plans " Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or ~ Soils Report --Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) 3/3/88 MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT PART THREE PAGE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1 B. Past Plan Implementation 1 C. Present Plan Implementation 2 D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2 II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3 A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3 B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5 3. Special Montgomery Regulations 6 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8 III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION l0 A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls 10 B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12 C. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13 D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13 E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 WPC 4173P DRAFT MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART THREE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of ~hree principal parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, -principles, and planning and design proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text. B. Past Plan Implementation Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery. Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning needs of Montgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation, subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and -1- missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust formulated in conjunction with these issues. C. Present Plan Implementation Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of Montgomery and its several subcommunities. D. Proposed Plan Implementation The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban design guidelines. A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from "County Zoning" to "City Zoning." -2- The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coord!nation; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It should ~e recognized that Part Three establishes an Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be undertaken separately. II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by the City of Chula Vista upon the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of developments over a broad geographical area. The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable. Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista Zoning Plan. While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's identity and unique -3- land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as modified by the special provisions and regulations of the Implementation Program. The "Special Nontgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of this section of Part III, shall take precedence over other land use regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them. B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a fundamental basis of the Implementation Program. With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants mentioned in the above paragraph. The Montgomery specific Plan's gross residential density categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential density standards, which are fundamental to zoning regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are: "Net residential density is the density of the building site. Gross residential density is the density of the building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections." As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore, if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it has a gross density of l0 dwelling units per acre.* 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and changes which are essential to the effective implementation and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning. The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide for the direct t~anslation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is therefore called the "Table of Translation." * Gallion & Eisner, in The Urban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is (the) area exclusive of public rights-of-way...whereas "gross density" usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by gross density. -5- o N oe § ~-'~ o~ ,.,o " o ~ "' ~ 3. Special Montgomery Regulations a. Land Use (1) The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a planned equilibrium of medium density residential, park and open space, institutional, commercial, and light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land, such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards, waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and shall not be expanded or continued beyond their existing time limits, or within 24 months after the date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L, Limited Industrial, whichever occurs last. This protracted time limit is designed to provide the involved land users the opportunity to convert their open uses of land into well-designed, authorized 1 i ght-i ndustri al developments. All of the subject uses which are not time-limited shall be governed by the City's Nonconforming Uses regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. {2) Existing vehicular and equipment storage yards and open impounds shall not be governed by the above provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope or tenure. New vehicular and equipment storage yards or open impounds shall be generally discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under the conditional use permit process. -6- (3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned; thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commissi6n; and, approved under the City's conditional use permit process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use development, residential land use shall not be permitted in industrial or commercial zones. (4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter 5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be prohibited. (6) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula Vista Design Revie~l Committee, may authorize a maximum 26% net density residential bonus for a project proposed for development within an area designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" (3-6 dwelling units per acre). This authorization must be predicated upon the Director's finding that the proposed project would be characterized by outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not become effective or operational in the absence of its ratification by the Planning Commission. The subject residential bonus would not be applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior Housing Development, as defined in Section 19.04.201 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies for an affordable-housing density bonus under -7- Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government Code, or the provisions of the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. b. Height The height of commercial and industrial buildings and structures located adjacent to residential uses ~hall not exceed two stories, or 28 feet. c. Setbacks All buildings constructed along the Main Street, Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the required setback areas. 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee shall be prerequisite to its approval or conditional approval of a developmental project. b. The Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the fundamental guide for the design review of projects proposed for development within Montgomery. Under special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus, shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning -8- Committee may determine that the townscape-planning guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are appropriate, and may request their employment, by the Design Peview Committee. c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be promoted in the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and civic projects. d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which they are located. e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between residential and other land use categories shall be encouraged. f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial project should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of the involved parcel's street frontage. Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum, twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may -9- be permitted through the conditional Imajor) use permit and design review processes. A directional sign permitted under this provision shall not be located within, or overhang a street right-of-way. g. New development should reflect the basic design character and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high levels of urbanity and sophistication. h. Architectural 'diversity and freedom should be encouraged in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, however, will necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design coordination. i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture, bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered. These features could commemorate the history of the involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence. j. Vertical or.~oof-mounted structures which do not make an important design statement should be discouraged. III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLE~IENTATION A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This process establishes a lot and street pattern, which greatly -10- influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner. Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and amorphous design. This has significantly impaired the Community's order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and circulation. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical reorganization. Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets; and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially reduce on-street and front yard parking and storage, and thereby improve the overall appearance of Montgomery. Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's subdivision controls, as amended in'accordance with the above suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Community. -1 1- B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Pro~ramming Chula Vista's Haster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major capital improvements of citywide significance. The r~ontgomery Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery planning area to the year 2005. The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as school districts and public utility companies. It will require an annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity. The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement Program could facilitate the advance purchase of public sites at a substantial savings. This program could also encourage private investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate their development programs with those of the City. Capital improvement programming for Montgomery should be oriented toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities. Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan. -12- C. Code Enforcement and Coordination While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the public safety, health, and general welfare, it also provides a plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline; and, promote revitalization. Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation. In Montgomery, the code enforcement program should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the Specific Plan. D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of Montgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end. These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the selective application of urban renewal measures, such as conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the circumstances of the particular project. 1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal, and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not significant. It often involves the cleaning and sprucing up of residential neighborhoods or commercial areas, and the provision of improved public services, works, and infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and usually do not entail extensive contributions from local government. -13- In the Montgomery Community, where much conservation activity is indicated, the ~ontgomery Planning Committee should promote it on an outreach basis. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of concerted action by the private and public sectors could result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation, the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a general rule, street improvements or additional public facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of dignity," and requires a strong community commitment. Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program. 3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it includes the remedies associated with conservation and rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of buildings; the re?atting of territory; and the expenditure of considerable capital for public improvements. Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within Montgomery, such as West Fairfield, where land must be marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most practical remedy available is redevelopment. -14- E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) is a newly instituted City program which has the expressed aim of ~ombining well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program include: -- identification and prioritization of needed public capital improvements; -- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation loan program; -- public education on zoning, building and other City codes; -- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up programs. The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for target-area status: -- need for public i~provements; -- need for housing rehabilitation; -- neighborhood character; -- income status; -- demonstration of local support for NRP. -15- IV. CONCLUSION The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives, statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban center in question. The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called "incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally, the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of Montgomery and its several subcommunitie$. WPC 4173P -16- - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* 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: ~x/khk~.CJc~ /~ . ~q~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: North South East West Is the project compatible with the 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 routes? ,t i- (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect-or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ,~ ) .~ What is the current park acreage requi,rements in the Park Service District? ,~Y~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ?.J ~ 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 ,igh ,'ti Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk,~form, texture or color? 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: D$~ector of Planning or Re~.~esentative Date - 10 - Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any:flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project?. b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~y/~ -' e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? A/~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. - ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?. Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? . 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that~oise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Qualit~ 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 ~ X 18.3 : ~/ NOx (NO2) X 20.0 = Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sulfur : x .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ Liquid W What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~/A Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~J/~ 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 City E~gin~r'o~ R6~g~nta'tive ' Da - 13 - Case No. FIRE DEPARTMENT . ' 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment or personnel? . .- , .Remarks Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT . 1, What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2, Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire protection for the p~oposed facility without an increase.in equipment. or personnel? ~72~/~.~.5} .. gire Hars~al EVALUATION Of POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for · all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial ' hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a. Does the project s'ite contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? A Significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? - 15 - YES POTENTIAL NO b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? __~ 4. Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? ..L~ b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the-capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water in any water body? ~/ . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? .~ 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources ~'~hich can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? 6. [and Form Could the project result in a substantial change. in topography or ground surface relief features? YES POTENTIAL NO 7. Air Quality - ~ a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? Emissions which could degrade the ambient air quality? -, _~ Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? _ ~ Interference ~,~ith the maintenance, of standard air quality? The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? _ U~ 8. ?ter Quality ~ Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public wa~er supplies? _ __~ 9. ~oise -- a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? ~_~ - 17 ~ YES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent k~ith the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation Scenic Highways Conservation - Housing - Noise ~~ Park and Recreation Open Space " ' Safety Seismic Safety Public Facilities YES POTENTIAL b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? .t~ The~ntial demand for additional housing or a~t~existing housing? 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? _ b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection Police Protection Schools , -. Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public Facilities , Including Roads -19- YES POTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas Communications systems -.. Water ..~ Sewer or septic tanks Solid waste & disposal 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? . 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result .in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renew/able natural resources? - 20 - YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances ~including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? . 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? ..~ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the envTronment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, whil~ long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) L~ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable ~vhen viewed in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which wil) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 22 - K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. _ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an-ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. 'Environ 'Coordinator Date WPC 0169P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 1 3. 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 - WoodcresL Development ( continued) A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as ~oodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, in order to subdivide 19.2 acres into 53 single-family lots and one open space lot. The property is located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive in the P-C zone. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-63 of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-63. 3. This item was continued at the request of the applicant from the meeting of May 24, 1989, in order to resolve certain issues with an adjoining property owner. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-63. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum of 33% or 17 lots within the project may provide sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. and 5 ft. for 3-car garages provided the lots are developed in compliance with the other provisions of Resolution No. 13426. This allowance assumes all lots will be developed with 3-car garages, and that garage conversions shall be prohibited on all lots. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 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 45, 46, and 4?; landscaping for these areas and the slopes at the rear of lots 48 thru 53 (and the side of Lot 53) 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 45 thru 53 to provide for maintenance access. d. The view fencing shall be used where the open space lot adjoins street "B"; all view fence within the open space maintenance district shall be provided with a slump stone base approximately 36" high. The owners of Lots 12-21 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. e. The decorative fence shall be used on the exterior sideyards of Lots 3 & 4 adjacent to Street "D". f. The retaining wall illustration and notation shall include a maximum height limit of 7.5 ft. for retaining walls. The restrictions on retaining walls shall be included within the CC&R's. g. The CC&R'S shall contain private fence/wall standards for slopes and top of slopes, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. h. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements have been reached with both school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project prior to approval of the final map. i. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water District with regard to the provision of terminal water storage and other major facilities to assure water availability to the project prior to the approval of a final map. j. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. k. Fire hydrants shall be required at maximum 500 ft. spacing subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 3 1. The developer shall be responsible for providing adequate right-of-way to construct Street "A" from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court as shown on the Tentative Map. Said right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. m. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements in Streets "A", "B" and "C" as shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary, and for the construction of necessary off-site improvements to construct Street "A" 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 necessary. Street "A" shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Subdivision Map approval for a residential collector street, and Streets "B" and "C" shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Map approval 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 in Street "D." Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Street "D" shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Subdivision approval, for residential streets. n. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works construction, the San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista. o. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets, except Telegraph Canyon Road, within the subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. p. Sewers serving 10 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. q. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. r. The cul-de-sac and the knuckle shall be designed and built in accordance with City Standards. s. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 4 on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended} The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. t. All off-site grading within the private property shall require a Letter of Permission from the property owners allowing the work to be done u. The sewer system shall be extended to the northerly property line at a grade and location sufficient to serve the property northerly of the subdivision. v. Paved access shall be provided to all sewer manholes. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. The developer shall obtain and grant to the City easements for storm drains prior to Final Map approval. w. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes x. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI. y. The design of all improvements shall conform to City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Standard Drawings and City standards in effect at the time of Tentative Map approval z. All vertical curves and intersection corner sight distance requirements shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. aa. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. bb. Lots 45 through 53 shall relinquish access rights to Street "B". cc. No lot shall be allowed to have frontage on public streets of less than 35 feet unless said reduced frontage is approved by the City Engineer. The following are map revisions and Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department: a. Map Revisions 1. Show the existing street grades of Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 5 2. For existing utilities (on-site and off-site) show the following information: -- Sewers: Location, type, size of sewer and manhole invert and rim elevations. -- Water: Location, type and size. -- Electricity, Telephone and Cable TV: Location, type and size. -- Gas: Location, type and size. 3. Show size and type of proposed sewer main. Show sewer manhole invert and rim elevations. Number all manholes. 4. Show proposed sewer for Lots 1 through 6. 5. Provide a typical section for Santa Cruz Court showing existing improvements. 6. Show property lines located at top of slopes along back of Lots 21 and 22. 7. Add the following note to all typical sections: Pavement per City requirements. 8. Show the proposed size of all storm drain pipes. 9. Add Engineer's signature stamp and expiration date to the Tentative Map. 10. Show the existing property line on the typical section for Street "A". ll. At top of Tentative Map show: Tentative Map Chula Vista Tract 89-8 Woodcrest Southwestern 12. Two lots are numbered as 23. Number lots consecutively. 13. Locate brow ditches in Lot A off-site, southerly of project. b. Code Requirements 1. The developer shall plant trees along all dedicated streets within the subdivision. The species, location and number shall be determined by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 6 2. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The developer shall underground all utilities serving the subdivision. 5. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797, as amended. 6. The developer shall pay "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees" in accordance with Ordinance 2251 prior to issuance of building permits. The amount of said fees to be paid shall be that in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 7. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. 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 sinQle 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 proposal The proposal calls for 53 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 3.9 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 and cul-de-sac, 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Stems for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 7 The subdivider has proposed the following street names for the project. Street A Santa Cruz Court Street B Southview Circle Street C Southview Court 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 6,700 sq. ft. and a maximum of 18,000 sq. ft. There are only two lots below 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. The SPA Plan shows all of the dwellings with 3-car garages. The dwellings will meet all of the basic bulk and setback standards applicable to R-1 development, with the exception of a percentage of the sideyard setbacks. In 1988, the Council adopted a policy for P-C zoned developments which allows 20% of the lots within a project to reduce sideyards from 3' and 10' to 5' and 5' for dwellings with a 3-car garage. Woodcrest is requesting an exception to the policy to increase the allowance from 20% to 33%, or from ll to 17 lots. The policy was adopted on the basis that the primary purpose of 3'/10' sideyards is to provide for vehicle access to the rearyard, and that a 3-car garage can offset this need to a significant degree by providing an additional enclosed parking space. The additional space will not accommodate larger RV's, but it can reduce the clutter of on-street and driveway parking by cars, and smaller RV's and boats. The policy also contains provisions which require the reduced sideyards to be level and that a minimum of l0 ft. be maintained between dwellings. No garage conversions are permitted, and specific locations are subject to staff review. Earlier discussions of the issue leading to the policy centered around projects which would provide a mix of two and three-car garage plans, and which would only use 3-car garages if sideyards were reduced. Woodcrest, however, proposes all 3-car garages but with reduced setbacks on only 33% of the lots -- resulting in what should be a much less cluttered street scene than the typical 3'/10' two-car garage project. The Commission supported a similar request at Woodcrest Terra Nova subject to the other provisions of the policy with the further restriction that garage conversions shall be prohibited on all lots. The open space lot would be within an open space maintenance district and subject to a landscape enhancement program. The developer will also install landscaping on the interior slopes. The maintenance of the rear of the lots which back-on to the loop street will be the responsibility of the nine involved property owners under the CC&R'S. We are further recommending that a minimum 10 ft. level width of landscaping be established at the rear of Lots 45, 46, and 47. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 8 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 3 and 4 and the view fencing should be used where the open space lot adjoins Street "B". 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. Although this property carries the same 4-6 du/ac designation as the proposal site, 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. 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 desiqned 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. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 9 c. Housing - The project will provide housing consistent with the Specific Plan designation and adjoining single family areas to the west. d. Conservation - No cultural resources have been found on the site and the value of biological resources is low. The open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road shall be revegetated with native plant species to mitigate impacts to a coastal sage scrub community below a level of environmental significance. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will result in the dedication and enhancement 5.6 acres of open space adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. Park acquisition and development fees will be collected prior to approval of a final map. f. Seismic Safety The site is not located on any known active fault trace. A geotechnical investigation indicates that current building code requirements are sufficient to protect dwellings from potential seismic activity. 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. WPC 6342P June 14, 1989 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner~ Subject: Item #3 - Amendment to Conditions of Approval for PCM-89-20/PCS-89-8 Please amend the staff recommended conditions of approval as follows: Modify Condition "m", second paragraph, to read: 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 in Street "D". 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. Street "D" shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Subdivision approval, for residential streets. Add Condition "dd" to read: dd. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and on individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. SSG:rms OTAY - 6-8 8-12 J 8-12 8-12 :~-~ " ~2 " 4-8 Exhi~t A 1037 Buena V~sla Wsy Chdl8 V~sta CA 92010 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Woodcrest/Southwest PROJECT LOCATION: Telegraph Canyon Road/Apache Dr. PROJECT APPLICANT: Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. CASE NO: IS-89-63 DATE: April 17, 1989 A. Project Setting The 19.17-acre parcel is located east of 1-805 on the north side of East H Street in Chula Vista, between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive. Land uses in the vicinity are primarily existing or planned for residential uses. The area to the west of the project site is primarily single family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, condominium townhomes are to the east with open space and single family dwellings to the south. B. Project Description The proposed project includes the construction of 54 single family residences on 19.17 acres of land with a net density of 5.35 dwelling units per acre (2.82 dwelling units per gross acre). All lots exceed the sizes required by the R-l- 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. CgmpatibilitS 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,~w/~ to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. city of chula vista planning department CIW O[ -- environmental review section CHUIA 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 Road, Santa Cruz Court and Apache Drive. The project proposes 54 single family residence, which can be expected to generate 648 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road is 15,170. The projected ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road including the project would be 15,818 when the project is built out. Telegraph Canyon Road is currently maintaining an E level of service which represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Grading was recently initiated for the Telegraph Canyon Road widening project. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its existing two and four lanes to six lanes. The City has estimated that the project should take a minimum of one year to complete. After the project is completed, Telegraph Canyon Road would operate at an A level of service. An A level of service represents a free flow of traffic, not affected by other users in the traffic stream. These dwellings will not be occupied until these improvements are made and therefore, the thresholds will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation Existing neighborhood and community parks near the project are adequate to serve the population increase resulting from the project. The project is served by Independence neighborhood park located at 1245 Calle Santiago, near Southwestern College. The project will also be served by the proposed 28-acre Rancho del Rey Community Park on Paseo Ladera, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 3 miles from the project site. Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit will be required to provide facilities for this project. The project therefore meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. 5. Drainage A portion of the open space area on the project site near Telegraph Canyon Road lies within a 100 and 500 year flood boundary; however, the proposed residential uses will not be subject to any flooding hazards. There are currently no existing drainage facilities to -3- serve the site. The project proposes to construct adequate drainage facilities to convey offsite runoff. An offsite pipe inlet west of the project at the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, is adequate to serve the downstream facilities with the proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Improvement and drainage channel. 6. Sewer Approximately 1,418 pounds of solid and 15,120 gallons of liquid waste will be produced daily. A fifteen inch sewer main is located on Telegraph Canyon Road, flowing westerly. The existing sewer main is adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. The District has prepared a water allocation report which limits the number of dwelling units to 1900 which can be provided service hy the District in a year. The proposed project will be considered for water service in accordance with the number of units that have been allocated water. A will serve letter assuring the provision of water from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The Otay Water District was granted an easement for a 12" pipeline that runs in a east-west direction from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly line of the proposed project. The grading requirements for this project may require that the pipeline be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet Otay Water District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. The Otay Hater 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 engineer to be suitable for development with nominal and relatively standard earthwork and site preparation procedures. -4- 9. Noise A noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the Proposed project from traffic associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road which will be widened to six lanes. Assuming a four-lane road with eight percent truck traffic, with an ADT of 15,818 (projected future ADT for Telegraph Canyon Road), the 65 dB(A) noise contour would be 169 feet from the center line of the road. When Telegraph Canyon Road is expanded to a six-lane road, with the same percentage of truck traffic, the noise contour would not be substantially different. The nearest residence is approximately 250 feet from the road. There would, therefore, be no adverse impact to the project from the associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road. 10. Schools Approximately 16 elementary students would be generated by the proposed project. The project is located within the Chula Vista Hills Elementary School attendance area of the Chula Vista City School district. The current enrollment for Chula Vista Hills is 329. It has a capacity of 600 students on a standard school schedule and 900 students on a year-round schedule {Table 1). A new elementary school facility is currently under construction in the Hills Communit~ of EastLake. Other potential elementa[v 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, ~qarch 1989 Sweetwater U~ion Hiqh School District, Thomas Silva -5- Schools in this district are at capacity and the district has added 19 relocated classrooms over the past two years to serve the growth. Bussing is being utilized to alleviate the overcrowding and to achieve ethnic balance. Current developer fees of $0.67 per square foot have been determined by the District to be inadequate to provide facilities for this development. The incorporation of this project into Mello-Roos Community Facilities District #5, established by the City of Chula Vista School District, would mitigate the impact of the project on the elementary school system below a level of significance. Approximately six middle and ten high school students would be generated by this project. Students from the project would be served by the Sweetwater Union High School District, and would attend Bonita Jr. and Sr. High schools. However, the District has indicated that present boundaries could change in the future. While total capacity for Bonita Jr. High School is 1,524 students, it currently has an enrollment of 1,525 students. The total capacity for Bonita High School is 1,932 students. It has a current enrollment of 1,740 students. The Sweetwater District will add four relocatable classrooms to Bonita High and three relocatable classrooms at Bonita Jr. High for the 1989-90 school year. The Sweetwater District has begun EastLake High School in the EastLake development. This facility is expected to serve 2,~00+ students. Completion is expected for the 1991-92 school year. Preliminary planning has begun on the middle school facility within Rancho del Rey SPA I'II, south of East H Street on Paseo Ranchero. ll. Biglo~ical Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted in July 1988 by RECON. Two sensitive botanical and no sensitive zoological resources were present on the property. Diegan coastal sage scrub found on the project site, is considered a sensitive plant community. The development will adversely effect the coastal sage scrub community on the project site. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. According to the biological report, habitat value on the site is low. The native vegetation occurs as an island, surrounded by development or by highly disturbed areas. To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should he revegetated with native plant species. -6- 12. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. E. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Traffic The project proposed 54 single family residences which can be expected to generate 548 ADT. The project is served by Telegraph Canyon Road which is currently maintaining an E level of service. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its present two and four lanes to six lanes under a separate project. With an upgrade to six lanes, Telegraph Canyon Road would maintain an A level of service with the addition of the ADT from this project. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will not significantly affect Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. Parks/Re~rea~.ig~ The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project. 3. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. It is the policy of the District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per years to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and reduce the impact of the project on water resources below a level of significance, the proposed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline between Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court (across the northerly line of the proposed project) be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet the Otay Water District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. -7- 4. 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 noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the proposed project from noise generated by Telegraph Canyon Road which has been proposed to be expanded to six lanes. The 65 dB(A) noise contour is located 169 feet from the centerline. The nearest residential unit is 250 feet from the road, therefore, no siqnificant noise impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 6. 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 adequate to provide facilities for this development. The districts have also indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would reduce the impacts of the projects to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources Two sensitive botanical resources, Diegan coastal sage scrub and the San Diego sunflower exist on the project site. Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive plant community and will be adversely impacted by the implementation of the proposed project. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. To reduce the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should be revegetated with native plant species. 8. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. ~o historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. -8- F. ~i.t.i~ation Necessary to Avoid SiQnificant Effects 1. Traffic Telegraph Canyon Road will not be significantly impacted with the additional traffic generated by the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 2. Parks/Recreation Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit are adequate to provide facilities for this project. The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3. Water It is the policy of the Otay Water District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per year to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and mitigate the impact of the project on water resources the Proposed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline that runs from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly lne of the proposed project be replaced. The developer has agreed to replace the pipeline. The developer will be required to meet the Otay Water District requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. 4. Geology and Soils No significant geotechnical impacts would occur from the implementation of the project as long as building codes are adhered to by the developer, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 5. Noise There are no significant noise impacts associated with the project and no mitigation measures are required. -9- 6. Schools The Sweetwater and the Chula Vista City School districts have indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would mitigate the impacts of the project to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road would be revegetated with native plant species in accordance with the revegetation program devised by RECON. 8. Cultural Resources Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. G. Findings of..Insi~nificant 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 deqrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Although the project has the potential of significant environmental impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significance through measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City as identified and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. -10- All impacts to the surrounding community will be incremental and will not cause significant growth in the surrounding community to occur. Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impact. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There are no known hazardous materials on the property. The Project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Shauna Stokes, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Keith Hawkins, Police Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson, Director of Planninq Otay Water District: Manuel Arroyo, Engineer Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva, Director of Planning Applicant's Agent: Dan S. Biggs Biggs Engineering Corporation 2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 121 San Diego, CA 92123 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista ~lunicipal Code City of Chula Vista EIR-89-2 Rancho del Rey SPA II Draft Supplemental EIR GEOCON, Inc. Prelimina[v Soil and Geologic Investigation for Chula Vista-Olson Site -ll- This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRON(~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 6222P city of chula vista planning department (:ITYOF environmental review section.CXLJL~VISTA Case No.~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt Date Rec' d~ City of Chula Yista Accepted Application Form Project No.~ A. BACKGROUNB 1. PROJECT TITLE WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) NORTH ~[nF nF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWFFN APACHF ~P A~n BIJEhI~.V!STA Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 642-050-~_~, 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 54 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4. Name of Applicant WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN PIEGO IN£. Address 5473 KEARNY VILLA RD., SUITE 210 Phone 61q_?77_9~n City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip q?123 5. Name of Preparer/Agent BIGGS ~NGINEERING £OPR. Address 224~ SAN DIEGO AVENUE~ SUITF 191 Phone 61g-2qB-sG41 City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip §2110 Relation to Applicant PROdECT CIVIL ENGINEER 6. Indicate alt 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 ~x~ Precise Plan - - Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan _--T-Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance ~( Other~,¢A . 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. Nap Noise Assessment __ Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or ~( Soils Report Other Approvals Required :, (Rev. 12/82) PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 835,045 or acreage 19.17 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. STREET: 4.22+ AC OPEN SPACE: 4.86+ AC. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family 54 Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 54 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHF~ 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) 2.82 D.U./AC. e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 5.35 D.U./AC. f. Estimated project population 54 X 3.5 : 189 g. Estimated sale or rental price range $250,000 + h. Square footage of floor area(s) 2150 + - 2600+ SF + 600+SF GARAGE i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 0.45 MAX (0.36 AVG.) j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 167 (3/~OT) + 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 pofnts to the structures and the o:'ientetfon to adjeinin~ propert~'es and stree~.s .. !,~:.'mb.?' O; cn-slt.? par',:i:g Spazcs p~ovided - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 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 }'es, complete the following:) a. Excludi~? ~rencbes to be backfi!led, how many cubic yards of earth v~il] be excavated? ~o,I)o0 + C.Y. h. How ':ar/) :t:bi¢ yards of f~ll wil t~e plac~d? 5L~O00 ~ C.¥. c. F:,3~ ;ud ~c,a (se. ft. c~' a:~-es will c. ,,,~,:,~il, []e ?~e - l'ax:~um ,s.pt~ ~: c ~t 27' /ve~-ege ]cpt~ <,f cut l.laxi['um '.eptt ~,: t~!l 35' Av,~reSe ,~e[:L[ ef fill __C9~ ~ ..... 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) AIR CONDITIONING, GAS FURNACE, TYPICAL MODERN ELECTRIC APPLIANCES 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 4.R6 + AC, 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A 6. ~ill 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: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines;.cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. NPW qTRFFTq.. FXTENSION OF GASt ELECTRIC¢ AND SEWER LINES. CUT AND FILL qI~PFq. DRATNAGE FAO)LITIES (AS REQUIRED) D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? YES (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? YES (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology ;re an':' cf ti~. followir.] features Ire'tnt site? .... Jif yes, lle,:re e~pla~n in Jetai!.) SUr,o_, eVqdeqco of ,, shJ]]~. ,j"OU'ld ,.,'atcr _ ~ 0: L~ E. O ,l .... ..... ~,,~., iR,\],X\G, Ct,,, .l L A)JAI :~,T :EL[Q[APi¢ CANfC:~ R, AD. - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. SFF TFNFTAT~VF [HAP N©. ~q.~R (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? Nfl 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? THF PRQ, IFCT qTTF Tg QtIRRFNTIY IN 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 FXIST~NG TRFFS 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? CURRENTLYt TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO HAZARDOUS ~'/E BEEN DISPOSED OF OR STORED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. (. Current Land Use a. Describe all s~,'uct~-es and land u~es ~i~Frently existino on th,- nroject si~,. ~'JJD IS CURPENTLY ~.~ '~T ~D IN IT'S NATt?A~L ~T_AqE. b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South ~q/A East N/A West N/A 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (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 Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. ,If acting f a corporation, include capacity and comFany -8- CaseNo.~ TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South ~ ~ East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use (~esignation on site: ~(r~ ~ ~ ~ North ' ~x.~/~,~ ~,~ South ~ ~<~ ~ ~.. West ~ ~ ,~ ,.,~ ' ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ( Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adja,cent tKan area so/~signated? ~x~ - -~ ~z~ ~-~i/.~t ~ ~.~ ~s ~he p~ojec~ located adjacent to any scenic tou~es? (~f yes, describe ~he design techniques ~eing used ~o pd~ec~ or ankance How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in [he 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.) L - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe. 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity /per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director of Planning or Representative Date 1. Drainage a. Is the~roject site within a flood plain? Y~.~o~wo~ ~-~-~-~-~e~P~ b. Wi]] the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the pro~ect creat~ any :flood~n~ hazards? What ~s the location an4 4escr~pt~on of exist~n~ on-s~t~ e. Are they a~equate to serve ~he p~o3ect? ~o3 M.~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site d~ainage facilities? ~ la A ~,~ /~&6T ~ a. ~at ~oads ~p~ov~de p~ma~y access to the pro~ect? ~, b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto t~ip~ to be ~enerated by the project (pe~ day)? ~q w I~ = ~qB ~oo,~o~c ~,~. c. What is the ADT and estimated ]eve] of service before and after project comp] etlon? 8efo~e Afte~ e. ~i]]'~t be n~essary ~at additional dedication, WidenSng and/or improvement be made to existSng streets? If so, specSfy the genera] nature of the ~cessary -ll - Case No. ~m~-~ 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Landslide or slippage? ~Y ~c~r~%ec~ b. Is an engineAring geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~. 4. Soils a. Are ther~ any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~ ~_ ~0 ~;JS K~o~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~. 5. Land Form a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site? ~t~: b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? Z~: 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify t~t a nois~, analysis ~ reared of the applicant? ~S, ~q/~ ~om Case No. 7. Air Ooality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ~ (per day) _ Factor Pollution CO ~ X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons ~J X 18.3 = II NOx (NO2) X 20.0 Particulates = Sulfur ~q~ ~ 1.5 : ' .78 : 8. ~e Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Sol id I~1~ # ~.iquid fS/Z.C) What is the location and size o~_~xisting sewer lines on--or adjacent to the site? __J_9" v¢P -! -~ ......... , ~uJdce~l: 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 ~acilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures - 13- Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire ~ta. tion and ,what is the Fire Depart~e~nt'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 ~.~ ~ (j~ j£/~ j~--~.~_~ ~/~m ~ ~ FTre Marshal Dat~ ~ / -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks (9' 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative C (... CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WIUL 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 ali persons having a financial interest in the application. Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. Fullerton Savings & Loan Association List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Same as "1" above 2. If any 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 Woodcrest 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, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc-~-6-~-~[ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, distr~ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combinat~ actj~fg as--a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Siena :~r~of appTic~nt/date Ronal~J? Van Daele, Vice President WP£ 07017 Woodcrest l)cvelopment of San Diego, Inc. A-l]O ~t or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 1 4. Consideration Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-86-4 EastLake Greens A. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft of this supplemental EIR on May 24, 1989. It is a supplement to the master EIR on the EastLake Planned Community. The review period for the State Clearing House extended through May 30, 1989; however, no further comments were received. Any information in the master EIR which was in need of updating has been addressed in this supplemental document, and responses have been provided to all comments received. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that Final EIR-86-4 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Commission will review and consider the information in the EIR as it reaches a decision on the project. C. CHANGES IN THE FINAL EIR The following major changes have been made in the text of the final EIR: 1. Water/Sewer These sections have been modified to provide a more accurate cumulative impact analysis of this and other projects in the service area and to more precisely identify how these services are to be provided. There is no change in conclusions regarding the significance of impact. 2. Schools This section has been revised to provide current school facility/ capacity/attendance figures. The conclusion is that the existing circumstances are better %hah was reported in the Draft EIR and that given the public facilities financing plan there will be a less than significant impact. 3. Thresholds Information regarding the Threshold Policy has been assembled into one Threshold section. The thresholds will not be violated by this project. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 2 D. CEQA FINDINGS, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MONITORING At the time of the preparation of this staff report on the final EIR, conditions of approval and final form of the possible project are being drafted. It is therefore not possible to complete the CEQA findings nor the mitigation monitoring program. These last three elements of CEQA review will be brought back for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting. WPC 6338P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of EastLake II General ~evel~pment Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, EastLake Greens Sectional Plannin'g. Area (SPA) Plan, Public Facilities and.Financin~ Plan; EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves the consideration of EastLake II which consists of the EastLake Greens and Trails General Development Plan and Planned Community District Regulations. In addition, the item also includes the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, EastLake Greens Public Facilities and Financing Plan. 2. The EastLake Greens project consists of 3,609 dwelling units on 830.5 acres and EastLake Trails consists of 1,260 dwelling units on 392.8 acres. 3. EastLake II represents the second phase of the EastLake development. The first phase EastLake I was annexed to the City in August of 1983. The next phase of the EastLake project (EastLake III), which includes the proposed Olympic Traininq Center, is schedmJled for planning consideration later this summer. 4. The Environmental Impact Report for the items described in this report is the preceding item on this agenda. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment 1), adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the EastLake Greens and Trails General Development Plan; and 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations for EastLake Greens and Trails; and 3. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment 2), adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in this report; and 4. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the EastLake Greens Public Facilities and Financing Plan; and 5. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the EastLake Greens Design Guidelines. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 2 C. HISTORY/STATUS The EastLake Greens and EastLake Trails neighborhoods constitute EastLake II. The project site is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road and east of the proposed alignment of SR-125. The project includes a General Development Plan and Planned Community District Regulations, and annexation of the site into the City of Chula Vista. A Sectional Planninq Area (SPA) Plan, Public Facilities and Financing Plan and Development Agreement are also being processed concurrently, to begin the implementation of the EastLake Greens portion of EastLake II. A Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Public Facilities and Financing Plan for EastLake Trails will be filed at a later date. Because portions of the project area have differing current General Plan and zoning status, it is necessary to briefly review the history and various components of the EastLake project. At the General Plan level, the EastLake property currently consists of two parcels: EastLake I, within the City, and EastLake II, adjacent to the City and within the Sphere of Influence. With the approval of the original EastLake project in 1982, the General Development Plan for the EastLake I Planned Community (PC) District was adopted for the EastLake I portion of the property. The portion of EastLake I south of Telegraph Canyon Road has general plan and zoning approval for future residential uses, but was merely assigned 1,299 dwelling units with the requirement that supplemental information would be required to secure full approval. The proposed configuration of EastLake Greens includes this partially approved portion of EastLake I and includes additional acreage. While the development of the EastLake Community has progressed, the City of Chula Vista has prepared a General Plan for all the property within the eastern sphere of influence (the "Eastern Territories"). The EastLake Property has been included in the General Plan Update program. This state of flux with the City's General Plan has influenced the planning of the EastLake II project. 1. Zone Chan~e As mentioned above the EastLake ! PC was adopted in 1982. The PC District was first amended with the approval of the EastLake ! Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in 1985. This second amendment (EastLake II) will expand the district to include the entire EastLake Greens and EastLake Trails areas. Currently, no land use districts, except a 14.9 acre park parcel in the OS-4 district, are established for the area south of Telegraph Canyon Road. The current General Development Plan indicates a Future Urban classification and 1,299 dwelling units on 320.7 acres in this area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 3 The proposed zoning of EastLake II will not substantively affect the development approved in the area north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Minor changes to the EastLake I General Development Plan are included in the proposed project to make it more consistent with the subdivision maps subsequently approved for the area. The statistics of the proposed General Development Plan also reflect the conversion of industrially zoned land within the EastLake ! SPA to residential uses in conjunction with the Salt Creek I project, which is entirely separate from this proposal. The proposed EastLake II Planned Community District Requlations (second amendment) should be referenced for specific use regulations and development standards. The text also includes the proposed EastLake II General Development Plan and Land Use Districts exhibits. 2. Annexation The project includes the annexation of the portion of EastLake II which is not currently within the incorporation limits of the City of Chula Vista. 3. EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan The EastLake Greens SPA Plan provides detailed guidelines for the EastLake Greens development project. The Site Utilization Plan, the key map of the SPA Plan, depicts permitted land uses, densities and target number of units per development parcel. The SPA Plan includes guidelines and standards for the project's land use, circulation, parks and recreation, infrastructure, and community design. A Public Facilities and Financing Plan are also project components, as well as a separate document containinq Desiqn Guidelines for the project. The development concept includes a golf oriented residential community and a corridor of commercial, public and quasi-public uses between the SR-125 alignment and EastLake Parkway. This area is known as the "Activity Corridor" and is an extension of the Village Center within EastLake I. Other major uses within the Activity Corridor include a high school, a community park, an area for churches, day care centers, health centers and other uses. The EastLake Greens community includes a wide range of residential densities and housing types totalling 3,609 dwellinq units, arranged around an 18-hole golf course. Support facilities include a driving range and country club complex, which contains a club house, swim and tennis facility. An elementary school site of approximately 10 acres and four neighborhood parks, ranging from approximately 3 acres to ll acres, are also planned. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 4 4. Comparative Project Statistics The statistics which describe the zone change component of the proposed project are presented in the several tables following: TABLE A Proposed EastLake Greens/Activity Corridor General Development Plan Statistics March l, 1989 AC. Density Max. D.U. Residential Uses Low 34.4 0-3 du/ac 97 Low/Medium 164.3 3-6 854 Medium 115.9 6-11 827 Medium/High 67.9 ll-18 814 High 40.7 18-27+ 1,017 Total Residential 432.2 8.5 avg. 3,609 Non-Residential Retail 19.6 Professional & Administrative 0.0 Research & Limited Manufacturing 0.0 Open Space 20.0 Public/Quasi-Public 17.1 Schools 59.2 Parks & Recreation 36.6 Golf Course 160.4 Major Circulation 88.4 Total Non-Residential 401.3 Future Urban 6.0 PROJECT TOTALS 830.5 4.4 avg.* 3,609 du *Excludes Future Urban acreage in calculation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 5 TABLE B Proposed EastLake Trails General Development Plan Statistics March l, 1989 AC. Density Max. D.U. Residential Uses Low 54.4 0-3 du/ac 163 Low/Medium 107.5 3-6 630 Medium 21.7 6-11 223 Medium/High 13.8 11-18 244 High 0.0 18-27+ 0 Total Residential 197.4 6.3 avg. 1,260 Non-Residential Retail 15.0 Professional & Administrative 0.0 Research & Limited Manufacturing 0.0 Open Space 2.5 Public/Quasi-Public 4.0 Schools 12.5 Parks & Recreation 67.6 Major Circulation 30.7 Total Non-Residential 132.3 Future Urban (north of Telegraph Canyon Road) 63.1 PROJECT TOTALS 392.8 3.8 avg.* 1,260 du *Excludes Future Urban acreage in calculation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 6 D. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The following is an analysis of the consistency of EastLake Greens and Trails General Development Plan with the prelimina~ Chula Vista General Plan Update. 1. Project Description The General Development Plan statistics indicate a total acreage of 1,223.3 acres and a maximum number of dwelling units of 4,869 (3.98 du/gr, ac.). The net residential acreage is 620.6 acres. There are 34.6 acres of retail commercial and 92.8 acres of public, quasi-public uses. Parks and recreation total 104.2 acres and open space accounts for 22.5 acres. The golf course totals 160.4 acres and the balance of the area is devoted to major circulation - 119.1 acres and future urban 69.1 acres. 2. Density Guidelines - Gener.al Plan Within each of the five residential land use categories depicted on the draft General Plan Land Use Map, there are three density gui del i nes; EastLake Greens/Trails: Baseline 2,208** du - 2,824* du Target = 3,312'* du - 3,928* du Maximum 4,415'* du - 5,031' du *Includes potential residential development transfer density of 616 dwelling units **Excludes potential residential development transfer density of 616 dwelling units 3. Discussion of General Plan Criteria for Higher Density Range. Section 6.2 of the draft General Plan Land Use Element describes the criteria to be met for residential projects with densities in the higher range of the designation: a. The inclusion within the project of public open space or parks that are beyond that provided for in the city's area (size) or improvement standards for such uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page ? b. The inclusion within the project of recreational uses that will improve the overall quality of the city. c. The provision of a significant proportion of the total residential units as qualified low income family housing. d. The provision of other citywide or community public facilities which could result in more efficient or cost-effective city services. These could be facilities such as police and fire stations and libraries. e. The demonstration of a superior project plan, above and beyond what would be expected as standards of high quality community development. A superior project would be defined in relation to such characteristics as site plan layout, grading and site development, and a coordinated theme of amenities, public services, landscaping and open space that enhance not only the project itself but are related to an integrated into to the larger community and general plan systems. Criteria 1: The inclusion within the project of public open space or parks that a~ beyond that' pro,vide'd for ~n the ~itY'S area (size) or improvements standards for suc.h, use.s~. A total of 104.2 acres of parks and recreational area plus a 160.4 acre golf course is provided including a community trail of 4 acres. In addition, approximately 22.5 acres of open space areas (slope banks) is provided along SR-125, and Telegraph Canyon Road. The criteria speaks to public open space or park beyond normal city requirements. The public parks in EastLake Greens are the community park (15.1 acres), a neighborhood park (11.0 acres), and a golf course trail (4 acres) that provides pedestrian avenues for walking or jogging within the project. In addition, there are three private neighborhood parks in the Greens totalling 10.5 acres. Bike lanes are planned along EastLake Parkway, the internal loop street, and the golf clubhouse street. EastLake Trails contains the Community Park (58 acres) and a neighborhood park (9.6 acres) which account for a total of 67.6 acres. The parkland dedication ordinance requires approximately 30.8 acres of improved parkland for EastLake Greens. EastLake Greens is proposing a total of 40.6 acres of public and private improved parkland, however, 10.5 acres is intended to consist of 3 private neighborhood parks. These private parks may receive 50% parkland credit, therefore, the 40.6 total would be reduced to 35.35 acres minus slopes. There is an extra 5 acres owed to the City as a result City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 8 of an agreement to provide extra park acreage due to the abandonment of certain open space easements over private parks in EastLake I. A separate agreement is being prepared concerning the EastLake I park adjustment. EastLake Trails is required to provide 10.2 acres of improved parkland and 67.6 acres is planned. Since the EastLake Trails SPA Plan has not been filed with the City, no specific information is available regarding public or private improvements, park design or other factors. Criteria 2 The in~usion within the project of recreational uses that will i.mprove the overall quality Qf the city. The principal recreational use included in the project is the golf course (160.4 acres). This is the third golf course to be built in the City of Chula Vista. A golf course within the EastLake Greens project will improve the overall open space quality of the city and provide additional recreational opportunities for those individuals who play golf (475 memberships). In addition, communities tend to acquire a heightened image or prestige when golf course developments are present--witness Fairbanks Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, La Costa, etc. Chula Vista with two private golf courses and one municipal course, but will still be short of golf courses for the current city population (1.7 days per capita participation rate x 126,000 persons x .01 = 2,142 participant/peak ~day 2142/500 people/course = 5.355 golf courses). See EastLake Greens Appendices - Recreation Master Plan, 1988. Therefore, the current city population needs five golf courses and the development of a third golf course will contribute to meeting this demand. The golf course will be a semi-private course open to members and guests. Various categories of membership will include EastLake residents and some non-resident and corporate memberships. Members will pay a membership fee plus monthly dues. A golfing membership is not included in the purchase of a house or condominium, however, membership fees for EastLake Greens homeowners will be lower than for those not living in the Greens. Criteria 3 The provision of a significant proportion of the total residential units as qualified low income fami. ly housing. The General Development Plan for EastLake Greens and Trails dated March l, 1989, contains no proposal for providing low income housing, although EastLake Development Company has stated their intention to conform to the Housing Element requirement that 10% of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to low and moderate income families. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 9 The ten percent standard is typically divided between low and moderate (5% each). The current HUD median income for a family of four in San Diego County is ~36,700. Moderate income is 80% to 120% of median or $29,350 to $44,050. Low income is 50% to 80% or $18,350 to ~29,350. EastLake is proposing to meet the moderate income housing requirement (180 du) by providing sales prices affordable to moderate income families in the small lot detached homes and higher density condominiums. The low income housing units required for the Greens (5% x 3,609 : 180 du) has yet to be negotiated with staff and will be a condition of approval of the SPA Plan. The City standard requires 487 units for low and moderate income families with rents not to exceed the maximum housing rent guidelines maintained by the Department of Community Development. The provision of a significant amount of low income housing above the 10% requirement of the Housing Element would constitute a consideration of granting additional density. Criteria 4 The provision ~f other c~ty-wide or commun!ty public facilities which could result in more eff.icie~t or cost effective city services. These could be facilities such as police and f~'re stations and libraries. The General Plan criteria number 4 limits consideration to public facilities "which could result in more efficient or cost effective city services". The expectation is for the developer to provide public facilities above the normal fair share requirement. The thought is that if the developer actually constructs a public facility that would contribute to the more efficient provision of public services, then that would be considered a positive factor in the City's review of a proposed density above the target density specified in the General Plan. EastLake Greens and Trails are providing certain public facilities such as schools above and beyond the requirement of State law to pay school fees of $1.53 per square foot for residential uses. The elementary and high schools will be constructed by the respective school districts as a result of the EastLake Development Company agreeing to the creation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Funding is envisioned to involve 50% State funds and 50% Mello-Roos funds. The provision of schools to serve the needs of EastLake residents as well as other residents of the community are assured by the establishment of the Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts by the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page l0 respective school districts over the EastLake Greens and Trails project area and, therefore, constitute a significant community facility which will be made possible through the cooperative efforts of the Sweetwater Union High School District and EastLake Development Company. Criteria 5 The demonstration of a superior project plan, above and beyond what would be expected as standards of high quality community development. A superior project would be defined in relation to such characteristics as site plan layout, grading and site development, and a coordinated theme of amenities, public services, landscaping and open space that enhance not only the pro~ect itself but related to and integrated into the larger community and General Plan system. The EastLake Greens SPA Plan contains sufficient detailed proposals with respect to trails, parks, landscaping, scenic roads with landscaped buffer, fencing plan, golf course, contour grading, site design, design standards and other planned community standards which demonstrate a superior project plan. The EastLake Greens project plan is proposinq a continuation of the same design elements started in EastLake I which won several awards for superior planning and design from the building industry, local planning and design organizations, as well as a City of Chula Vista Beautification Award. 4. Higher Density Considerations The first concept in guiding the consideration by the City of target versus maximum density for a specific project is public benefit. The normal project could expect to receive favorable consideration at the target density, but the exceptional project (as tested against the above criteria) could expect to receive favorable consideration above the target density. The definition of public benefit is broadly stated in terms of additional open space, additional recreational facilities, additional public facilities, to improve efficiency of public services, additional affordable housing or superior project design. The idea is that the exceptional project would provide substantially more than the standard City requirement for each of the above. For example, the City has adopted an ordinance setting forth park land dedication and improvement fees. If a pro~ect simply paid the required fees, it would not qualify for additional density above the target. The second concept has to do with the relationship between density credit for additional public benefits and density transfers for the same lands devoted to such facilities or uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page ll The point is that a project granted maximum density on the basis of the provision of additional public facilities, etc. should not be credited with transfer density from these public facility sites to the residential area of the project. The assumption made in this analysis is that "double counting" would not be consistent with the General Plan. In short, if a high school site is given approval for density transfer from the high school site to the residential area, then, the provision of a high school could not be considered a second time in approving the project for maximum density. To do so would constitute "double-counting". 5. Estimated EastLake II Densi.ty Calculations Based Upon Draft General Plan Gross Area: Greens 830.5 Trails 392.8 1 ~-~-3-~- acres Transportation (General Plan Circulation Element Map): 63.8 acres Open Space (General Plan Land Use Plan Map): lO7.1 acres Non-Residential (General Plan Land Use Plan Map and General Development Plan Map): Retail Commercial 42.7 Public/Quasi-Public 67.8 Future Urban 69.1 17_-'~. 6 acres Urban Development Area: Gross Area 1223.3 Transportation -63.8 1,1.-~F~.5 acres Open Space -lO?.l 1,-~O~F~-~acres Non-Residential -179.6 ~acres Potential Residential Development Area (General Development Plan Map): Greens: Community Park 15.1 High School 49.2 Elementary School 10.0 Neighborhood Parks 21.5 l])~-~acres City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 12 Trails: Neighborhood Park 9.6 Elementary School 12.5 Community Park 15.0 Water Tank 4.0 ~acres 95.8 + 41.1 = 136.9 acres Residential Development Area: Urban Development Area - Potential Residential Development Area 872.8 ac. - 136.9 ac. = 735.9 acres Density Calculations: (General Plan Land Use Designations x Acreage) A. Residential Development Area: (Low-Medium 3-6 du/ac) 3.0 du/ac, x 735.9 = 2208 du (Baseline) 4.5 du/ac, x 735.9 = 3312 du (Target) 6.0 du/ac, x 735.9 = 4415 du (Maximum) B. Potential Residential Development Area: (Target Density x Acreage) 4.5 du/ac, x 136.9 ac. = 616 du's. C. Total Yield: Baseline = 2208 + 616 = 2824 du Target = 3312 + 616 = 3928 du Maximum = 4415 + 616 = 5031 du 6. General Plan Amendment for Parcel R-26 (Greens) Change from Public/Quasi-Public to Low Medium Residential (3 to 6 du/ac) 13.3 acres x 3.0 du/ac = 40 du 13.3 acres x 4.5 du/ac = 60 du 13.3 acres x 6.0 du/ac = 80 du City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 13 7. C~.nsistenc~ with Draft General Plan Table C1 Draft General Plan Land Use Statistics - EastLake II Land Use AC Residential - Low-Medium 854 Public/Quasi-Public 81.1 Commercial - Retail 32.6 Circulation 63.8 TOTAL ~ The proposed EastLake Greens/Trails project includes a total of 4,869 dwelling units which is within the acceptable range for a high quality development. According to the proposed implementing policies for the Draft General Plan, the number of units calculated as the "Target" is the quantity allowed for a standard project. Projects which exhibit some or all of the following characteristics, or benefits to the City, are permitted increased density up to the maximum shown under "High": extra parks, open space, or recreation facilities; a significant amount of affordable housing; inclusion of community wide public facilities; and/or, superior project planning. The EastLake II project includes a significant amount of such "extras", qualifying it for the available additional density: - Parks, Recreation The project golf course provides a and Open Space significant amount (160 acres) of additional recreational and open space uses within the project. Each neighborhood within the EastLake Community has a major recreation feature, in addition to standard parks. The total park and recreation area, excluding the golf course is 104.2 acres, which is significantly above the 39.2 acres required by the City. Significant The EastLake II Planned Community is Affordable committed to provide at least 10% of the Housing units at "affordable" prices. Historically, a significantly larger percentage of the units have been provided in the "affordable" price range within EastLake I particularly in the moderate price range. 1 Acreage based on planimetered areas traced from Draft General Plan Land Use Map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 14 - Community-wide Five major community serving public Public Facilities facilities are a part of the project: the EastLake High school, two elementary schools, and community parks. These facilities will serve not only the current and future residents of the EastLake Community, but also of current residents in surrounding areas of the City. Superior Planning The project is located within the EastLake Planned community which provides substantial and coordinated neighborhood amenities, such as the lake, swim club, integrated shopping and employment areas within the community, and extensive design and landscaping, amenities. The EastLake Greens project provides a golf course residential community, and adds a new dimension to the character and attractiveness of the City. EastLake Trails will further expand the residential diversity of the City by adding an equestrian oriented neighborhood. The EastLake II project meets several of the General Plan criteria for consideration above the target range. The estimated target density is 3,988 du. and the maximum density is 5111 du. Consideration of density does not necessarily require a project to meet all five of the General Plan criteria discussed in this section, although to be a superior project, clearly more than one of the criteria would usually be present. This project is exceptionally well planned and provides the public facilities and amenities which will reflect well on the City of Chula Vista. Therefore, it is recommended that the EastLake II project is consistent with the draft General Plan and qualifies for approval of a density above the target of 3,988 du but below the maximum of 5111 du. The approved density for EastLake Greens would yield 3,609 du and for EastLake Trails 1280 E. EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The EastLake Greens and Trails General Development Plan contains 1228.4 acres with a maximum of 4,869 dwelling units, 34.6 acres of retail commercial, 160.4 acre golf course, 3 schools totalling 71.7 acres, 7 parks totalling 104.2 acres and major streets containing ll9.1 acres. Other land uses consist of quasi-public areas to accommodate churches, day care center, and various community facilities totalling 17.1 acres and some 69.1 acres of future urban. The purpose of the future urban is to include a buffer area beyond the actual development site to be annexed to the City so that off-site grading permits can be controlled by Chula Vista rather than the County of San Diego. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 15 The design of the project is similar to EastLake I and continues the same activity corridor concept to accommodate more intense uses within a corridor adjacent to future Route 125 with the residential neighborhoods clustered about the golf course. The housing types cover the full range of densities, floor area sizes and price in keeping with the balanced community concept. Some of the high density units will be reserved for families of low and moderate income. The Greens contains approximately 35% single family detached units and the Trails has approximately 70% single family detached. The breakdown of units within each density category is as follows: Greens Low and Low Medium Medium Medium High High (0-3 du/ac)(3-6 du/ac) (6 to ll du/ac) (ll to 18 du/ac) (18 to 27~du/ac) 859 919 814 1017 Trails 793 223 244 0 1 652--'~-34% ) 11 4~--~-23% ) 1 05~'-I-22%) 1 O17-(21%) Substantial refinements have been made for the General Development Plan as a result of staff discussion with the EastLake Development Company. The Community Park and High School locations and size have been worked out with the high school district and City park staff. The sites are being graded in order to permit construction of the high school to begin by 1989. This will be the first high school in the Sweetwater High School District built with Mello-Roos District funds. Completion is scheduled for 1991. The parks and recreation uses (104.2 acres) exceed the acreage requirements of the City for parks which is 39.2 acres. A community trail is planned along the golf course and the golf course is connected to the Salt Creek open space area by a second community trail. The General Development Plan proposes two elementa[v schools - one in the Greens neighborhood and one in the Trails neighborhood. Each elementary school site is accompanied by a local park. The schools will be built using Mello-Roos District funds paid for by future residents and businesses. The parks will be built by EastLake Development Company. Two retail commercial sites have been identified to provide comml~nity shopping facilities to each of the two major neighborhoods. Both sites are located on Telegraph Canyon Road (a major arterial road) to avoid disturbing the residential neighborhoods. Two areas have been reserved for church facilities, day care centers, and other types of public and quasi-public uses totalling 8.8 acres. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 16 The General Development Plan will be limited to a maximum of 4869 dwelling units based upon the General Plan analysis presented above in Section D of this report. F. EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN The EastLake Greens SPA Plan is the first of two phases of development of EastLake II. The second phase of EastLake II will be EastLake Trails. The Greens consists of 830.5 acres with 3609 dwelling units and related commercial and public uses. A master tentative subdivision map is being processed to subdivide the land into lots for single-family and attached housing projects. The Greens is divided into a seven year development program for an average of 516 dwelling units per year. The Site Utilization Map and SPA Plan text constitute the EastLake Greens SPA Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires the approval of a General Development Plan before a Sectional Planning Area Plan may be approved. In practice, all of these planning documents are prepared and acted upon concurrently to minimize time and expense. The EastLake Greens SPA Plan is intended to provide a more detailed plan for the development project before subdivision maps and site plans are acted upon. The greater level of detail contained in a SPA plan serves as the master planning document by which to evaluate individual project plans filed as subdivision maps by individual builders. This project will involve several different building companies which will acquire lots from the developer. The SPA Plan will serve as the single master plan to guide the individual builder in carrying out their individual projects. The following discussion is a brief summary of the EastLake Greens SPA Plan which is attached to this report. Plan Structure and Design EastLake Greens is intended to be a golf course/country club community with a broad range of housing types designed to make housing available to families of various income levels. The plan structure consists of an 18-hole golf course/residential focus served by an activity corridor on the west edge. The seam tying both neighborhoods together is EastLake Parkway. The focal point of the golf course/residential neighborhood is the clubhouse, swim and tennis facility located at the center of the project. Major roads which define the SPA Plan boundaries are future Route 125, Telegraph Canyon Road, Hunte Parkway and Orange Avenue. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 17 The project will be served by a new high school, and elementary school, both of which are assured at the time of need based upon agreements between EastLake Development Company and the respective school districts. A 15.1 acre community park will be located adjacent to the high school and the concept master plan has been approved by the City Council. The park will contain four night-liqhted softball fields with four soccer field overlays, picnicking facilities, two large play areas, jogging path with exercise stations, a sand volleyball court, parking, restroom facilities, and a multi-purpose/community center. The estimated cost of park facilities is $2.6 million. Four other parks - one public and three private will serve the local park needs of project residents. The one public park is ll acres and is located adjacent to the future elementary school. Transportation The principal access to the project is Telegraph Canyon Road and EastLake Parkway. In the future, a freeway within the alignment of State Route 125 will need to be completed. This facility may be built initially as a four or six lane road from Telegraph Canyon Road to State Route 54 and later converted to a freeway. CalTrans is preparing an environmental impact report to evaluate the various alternative alignments for State Route 125 from SR54 to the Second Border Crossing. The initial road constructed should be designed to State Standards so that when the freeway is constructed in the future, the road will meet freeway standards with respect to design criteria. The other streets bordering the project and providing access internally will meet the new Circulation Element standards contained in the General Plan Circulation Element. G. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN The EastLake Public Facilities and Financing Plan has been expanded to cover the public facilities needed for EastLake Greens. All of the completed public facilities listed in the EastLake I plan have been deleted and the facilities remaining to be constructed have been included in the new document. The EastLake Greens Public Facilities and Financing Plan has four key features. It describes the public facilities needed to serve the project, on-site and off-site, the estimated costs, the method of financing, and the phasing of facilities. The plan describes the phasing of the project and the cumulative development east of 1-805 that can be accommodated with the construction of the necessary public facilities at each phase both on-site and off-site. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 18 The plan provides guidance as to the available financing techniques. Some facilities are best financed by the developer and other facilities can only be financed by specific techniques available in state law. For example, the financing of schools can only be assured by the use of Mello-Roos Community Facilities District bond financing. The plan also ties the project into the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) program which was adopted by Council in February 1986 for the EastLake Development area. The purpose of the DIF program is to provide for the financing of transportation improvements necessitated by development east of 1-805. The program identifies specific street improvements that will be required to maintain an acceptable level of service on the circulation system. These street improvements will not be included in normal subdivision map conditions of approval because they serve many different developments. The program prioritizes the need for each street in relation to a cumulative amount of development for the entire planning area. Each dwelling unit must pay a fee of $2,101 (commercial and industrial the same) to be used toward the cost of constructing some $71.8 million in circulation element streets. The developer's obligation to satisfy the DIF can be met by paying the fee or constructing the street. If a particular street is needed before the next phase of a project, then the developer must build the facility and be reimbursed his costs when other developments pay their DIF fees. Due to the General Plan Update, the Development Impact Fee program will remain an interim measure until the General Plan Update is adopted and the land use and density are solidified. Regardless of the method of financing new public facilities caused by new development, the guiding policy of the City is that the cost of the facilities shall be paid by the developers of the lands who benefit. With respect to other public facilities such as parks, schools, libraries, water, fire, and police facilities, the EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan makes the following provisions: a. Parks and Recreation - The EastLake Greens and Trails plan makes provision for public and private parks. A total of two communit~v parks and five neighborhood parks are proposed. All parks would be fully improved at the time of development. A total of 104.2 acres of public and private parks will be provided. b. Schools The EastLake property has been placed in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to finance elementary, junior and high school facilities. A high school will be constructed plus 2 elementary schools. Agreements have been consummated wi th both school districts to guarantee the provision of necessary school facilities to serve the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 19 c. Water Facilities - The project will be served by the Otay Municipal Water District. The District is currently negotiating with three developers to construct a 50 million gallon reservoir to provide terminal water storage facilities as required by the Otay Municipal Water District and the County Water Authority. The Board of Directors will require EastLake to participate in providing the necessary water reservoir facilities and all necessary lines, pump station, etc. to meet the District's initial requirements for a 5-day emergency storage capacity with the ultimate objective of a lO-day emergency storage capacity. EastLake will also install separate water lines to bring reclaimed water from the water reclamation facility located on Jamacha Road to the EastLake Greens project. Reclaimed water will be used to water the golf course, parks, open space and street medians, subject to Health Department approval. d. Fire and Police Facilities - EastLake I is still obligated to provide fair share fees for the construction of a 3,500 square foot permanent fire station to serve the local area plus dedication of a one acre site within the EastLake I Village Center. Construction of a fire station will be required when the City determines its need and location based upon growth patterns in the Eastern Territories and upon the Fire Station Master Plan. Police facilities will not need to be enlarged due to this project, however, new police patrol beats will be established as development occurs. Improved communication facilities for police and fire service in the Eastern area will be needed within the EastLake property at an elevation of 550 to 600 feet. e. Sewer Facilities The project will sewer to the Telegraph Canyon basin through the 15 inch Telegraph Canyon trunk sewer line. Adequate capacity exists to accommodate EastLake Greens for several year for several years of development. When the time comes to enlarge the capacity, EastLake Development Company will be required to provide additional pipe capacity and/or build a separate water reclamation facility to handle their needs or provide an off-site connection down Salt Creek and Otay River Valley to existing facilities. Other public facilities necessitated by the project which are identified in the EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan are located on-site and will be made conditions of the tentative subdivision map, i.e., storm drainage including on-site retention basins to ensure no downstream flooding, street lighting and landscape maintenance (reclaimed water), mass transit center and bus shelters through the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 20 The Reserve Fund established as part of the EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan and Development Agreement should be expanded to the EastLake Greens project to assure the City that the fiscal impact of the project maintains the objective forecast in the Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Environmental Impact Report. H. DESIGN GUIDELINES The design guidelines are intended to guide the preparation of site plans, architecture and project subdivisions in implementing the master plan for the project. The design manual will ensure that all development within EastLake Greens and subsequent SPA plans maintain a high standard of design throughout the project. The design guidelines contain sections on community design, general development, landscape design and site planning criteria. The community design guidelines call out the major design elements such as the country club theme with community trails, special grading techniques, along highly visible slope banks, entry monumentation at neighborhood entrances, privacy fencing and edge treatments along the golf course with design consideration for grading, views and landscaping. The general development guidelines require variations in architectural styles throughout the project with certain consistent design features for signs, lighting, parking lot design, and landscape screens. The landscape design guidelines describe the use of thematic trees within each of the major districts and along the various paths or trails. The landscape palette will vary from manicured areas such as the golf course to naturalized and native areas. Streetscapes will be planted with dominant and accent trees according to established landscape practices of the city. The site planning criteria deals with lot/building schematic for various housing types. Various lotting, patterns, setbacks, corner lot treatment and homeowner improvement guidelines are detailed. I. IMPLEMENTATION In addition to the normal implementation techniques utilized for this development such as subdividing controls and design review approvals of individual projects. There are several other implementation techniques applicable to the project. 1. Planned Community District Regulations The zoning requested h¥ EastLake is the Planned Community Zone which enables the city to write special zoning regulations to fit the proposed development. The Planned Community District Regulations that were written by the city and adopted for EastLake I are proposed to be amended to include EastLake Greens and Trails. The zoning regulations work to imolement the General Development Plan and the Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA Plan) for the Greens and Trails neighborhoods. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 21 2. Additional Development Impact Fee Program - The City is developing a secondary development impact fee system for facilities that serve development on a City-wide basis. Facilities such as libraries, corporation year, civic center expansion, police communication facilities, etc. will need to be expanded as cumulative development increases. Some of these facilities are covered in the EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan, however, the Development Agreement makes provisions for charging EastLake any new development impact fees if the program is adopted by the City Council 3. Monitorin~ Pro~ram - The project will be required to submit annual public and private development activity reports for traffic counts on specified streets and building permit information to the City Planning Development for review. The Public Facilities Financing Plan will need to be updated annually as the actual amount, timing and location of new development takes place. The monitoring program shall also review the on-going fiscal impact on the City's Operating Budget. The fiscal impact analysis prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Report shows a positive fiscal impact on the City. Should the fiscal impact on the City change in the future, the annual monitoring program will provide the analysis to explain causes and alternative causes of action. Conditions of Approval for ~astLak~ II The EastLake II General Development Plan and related documents are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The golf course clubhouse and swim/tennis facility shall be subject to a conditional use permit prior to the recordation of the final subdivision map for the purpose of regulating operations including hours of business, lighting, types of special events permitted, parking, design review, and other such items. 2. The pedestrian bridge over Otay Lakes Road to connect EastLake I to EastLake II shall be constructed prior to construction of EastLake or EastLake II, commercial centers located at Route 125 and Otay Lakes unless an alternative is approved by the City Engineer. 3. All fencing, landscaping, irrigation systems, signing and entry monumentation shall be installed in accordance with the SPA Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4. Reclaimed water systems shall be installed as a backbone system to be used in irrigating the golf course, open space areas and street medians, subject to Health Department approval. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 22 5. The developer shall submit annual building permit reports, traffic counts and fiscal impact analysis to the City Manager for the term of the Development Agreement for EastLake Greens. 6. EastLake II shall provide a minimum of 3 church sites of at least ? acres total. 7. Fencing shall be shown on the EastLake Greens SPA Plan across the aqueduct easement at Orange Avenue. 8. If fencing for Unit 33 is provided, it shall be the community theme wall or a wall designed to be compatible with the theme wall. 9. A minimum of 10 percent of the total dwelling units permitted shall be reserved for low and moderate income housing to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 10. An interim sewer agreement specifying the conditions of diverting sewage flows into the Telegraph Canyon basin shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to recordation of the final map. ll. Exhibit 6 Circulation Map and cross sections shall be modified to be consistent with the Tenative Map street cross sections. 12. The EastLake I Reserve Fund should be extended and expanded to cover the EastLake Greens Project to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. WPC 6297P ATTACHMENT 1 EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. An analysis of the General Development Plan found that the project is in conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan with respect to land use patterns and intensities, circulation, public facilities, affordable housing, conservation and open space, and environmental protection. 2. A PLANNED COMMUNITY CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. The applicant has submitted a sectional planning area plan and a master tentative subdivision map for a portion (830.5 acres~ of the area covered by their General Development Plan. 3. IN THE CASE OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PARKS ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. The General Development Plan proposes a mixture of housing types, providing housing opportunities to a wide range of community residents. In addition, the project includes an 18 hole golf course with clubhouse, swimming and tennis facility parks and open space and community trails in a master planned environment. All public facilities needs have been provided for in the public facilities financing plan and development agreement. 4. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIPJ~BILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The General Development Plan for EastLake II proposes no industrial or research uses. 5. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH. The General Development Plan proposes an Activity Corridor along future Route 125 freeway containing shopping, community park, high school, church sites, and other high intensity uses. These uses are separated from the residential neighborhoods by EastLake Parkway and thereby preserving the desirability and stability of the residential areas. 6. THE STREETS AND THROUGHFARE PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEOUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The Environmental Impact Report contains a traffic analysis of the EastLake II project prepared in accordance with the proposed land uses and circulation element of the Chula Vista General Plan. The resulting analysis indicates EastLake II will build or provide funding for streets on and off-site to carry the anticipated traffic in accordance with the City's threshold criteria. 7. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S~. The amount, type and location of neighborhood commercial development is adequate to serve the proposed residential uses. Major shopping needs can be adequately met by commercial areas in Chula Vista. 8. THE AREAS SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The General Development Plan will not impact the planned land use of adjacent areas. With respect to these adjacent areas to the south and west, modifications to the General Development Plan have been made to ensure compatibility with adjacent areas. W~C 6311P ATTACHMENT 2 EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the EastLake II General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. 2. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facility projects required by EastLake Greens and also the regional facilities needed to serve. 3. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within EastLake Greens represent a continuation of the master planned community elements established with the development of EastLake I. The major theme of EastLake Greens is the 18 hole golf course surrounded by residential uses of various densities. The project has been planned in a fashion to integrate well with adjacent land uses and to avoid off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the EastLake II Environmental Impact Report. WPC 6311P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Tentative Residential Subdivision Map for EastLaKe Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-3 - EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND The proposed subdivision for the EastLake Greens area encompasses 830 acres of land located in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista east of 1-805 and south of Otay Lakes Road. The project is bounded on the north by Otay Lakes Road, to the east by Hunte Parkway, to the south by Orange Avenue and to the west by future Route 125. The EastLake I Village Center and Business Park borders the site to the north and the remaining area surrounding the site is farm land. The Subdivision Map includes streets, open space, church sites, commercial lots, park sites, school sites, condominium lots and single-family lots. The Environmental Impact Report EIR-86-4 was considered as a preceding item on this agenda. B. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings contained in this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the subdivision map for EastLake Greens subject to the following conditions: Engineering Department Conditions: 1. Public improvements required in this resolution shall include, but not be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, traffic signals, street lights, traffic signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. 2. The developer shall be responsible for: a. The construction of public street improvements of all streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision. b. The construction of public street improvements for all off-site portions of Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway, Palomar Street and Orange Avenue along the full length of the subject property. Full width improvements shall be required unless the developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that partial improvements will meet the Cit@ standards for traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and parking. Transitions to existing improvements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 2 3. a. The developer shall guarantee the construction of the following improvements prior to the approval of the final map for any of the phases of development identified in the EastLake Greens phasing plan. Phase Facilities Needed *(See table I for description of each facility.) lA 1 2 lB 1 3, 4, 8, 15 lC 1 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15 1D 1 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15 2 1 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 3 1 2, 2a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 14, 15 * Facilities that shall be guaranteed prior to approval of final map for the corresponding phase and completed prior to permits being issued for the subsequent phase (i.e., facilities for lA through D completed before permits for Phase 2 are issued). b. The developer shall guarantee the construction of all interior public improvements required for development of any unit of development prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map for said unit. 4. Right turn lanes and dual left turn lanes shall be provided at the intersection of any of the following street classifications: major-major, major-prime arterial, prime arterial-prime arterial. 5. Palomar Street from the westerly subdivision boundary to EastLake Parkway shall be constructed as a 4-lane collector (74 feet from curb-to-curb). 6. No direct access for residential driveways will be allowed to Street "A", EastLake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Street "E", "D" Street, Street "F", Otay Lakes Road, Orange Avenue and Palomar Street. The location of street entries and major entries for multi-family projects to the above streets shall be approved by the City Engineer. 7. Lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall not be less than 35 feet unless approved by the City Engineer. 8. a. A transition to existing improvements is required on Otay Lakes Road east of Hunte Parkway. Said transition shall be approved by the City Engineer. b. The intersection of Hunte Parkway and Orange Avenue shall require special treatment to transition to the prime arterial status of Hunte Parkway southerly of said intersection. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 3 TABLE I DESCRIPTION OF ONSITE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Facility No. Street Portion 1 EastLake Parkway Otay Lakes Road to Street "D" 2 EastLake Parkway Street "D" to the Interim Terminus South of the SDG&E Easement 2a EastLake Parkway Palomar Street to the Interim Terminus South of the SDG&E Easement 3 Street D EastLake Parkway to North Street "A" 4 North Street "A" Street "D" to Hunte Parkway 5 North Street "A" Street "D" to Street "E" 6* South Street "A" Street "D" to Hunte Parkway 7 Street "E" EastLake Parkway to Street "A" 8 Hunte Parkway Otay Lakes Road to South Boundary of Phase lB 9 Hunte Parkway Street "E" to North Boundary of Phase lC 10 Hunte Parkway Street "E" to South Street "A" ll Hunte Parkway South Street "A" to Orange Avenue 12 Orange Avenue Hunte Parkway to West Boundary of Subdivision 13 Street "E" Street "A" to Hunte Parkway 14 Palomar Street EastLake Parkway to West Bounda~ of the Subdivision 15 Otay Lakes Road Lane Avenue to Hunte Parkway * In conjunction with development at Phase 1D, developer may construct either that portion of South Street A to connect Street QQ to Street "D" or that portion to Hunte Parkway. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 4 9. Underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards shall be installed at the following intersections: EastLake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road EastLake Parkway and "D" Street EastLake Parkway and "E" Street EastLake Parkway and Palomar Street Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road Hunte Parkway and north Street "A" Hunte Parkway and "E" Street Hunte Parkway and south Street "A" Hunte Parkway and Orange Avenue "E" Street and Street "A" "D" Street and north Street "A". Mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment shall not be installed unless approved by the City Engineer. 10. Interconnect conduit, pull boxes and pullrope shall be installed to connect following intersection signal systems. Otay Lakes Road/Route 125 to Otay Lakes Road/EastLake Parkway Otay Lakes Road/EastLake Parkway to Otay Lakes Road/Hunte Parkway Otay Lakes Road/EastLake Parkway to EastLake Parkway/"D" Street EastLake Parkway/"D" Street to North Street "A"/"D" Street EastLake Parkway/"D" Street to EastLake Parkway/"E" Street EastLake Parkway/"E" Street to EastLake Parkway/Palomar Street Hunte Parkway/Otay Lakes Road to Hunte Parkway/North Street "A" Hunte Parkway/Street "A" to Hunte Parkwa¥/"E" Street EastLake Parkway/"E" Street to Street "A /"E" Street Street "A"/"E" Street to Hunte Parkway/"E" Street Hunte Parkway/"E" Street to Hunte Parkway/North Street "A" Hunte Parkway/South Street "A" to Hunte Parkway/Orange Avenue Orange Avenue east of Hunte Parkway to subdivision boundary. 11. a. A conditional use permit shall be filed with the City for the golf course, clubhouse, and related swimming and tennis facility prior to issuance of building permits for purposes of regulating operations, uses, and site design. b. Locations where golf course crossings of streets are provided shall be clearly signed and marked. Where streets being crossed are classified to carry traffic at a speed greater than 25 mph, such crossings shall only be at intersections or through the use of grade separation structures. c. The developer or other subsequent owner of the golf course shall agree to be responsible for the payment of ongoing repair and maintenance costs of golf course grade separation structures to the City. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 5 d. Golf course safety features shall be reviewed by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of the golf course. 12. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. 13. a. Bus stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both sides of Streets "A" adjacent to the intersections with the following streets: Street "E", Street "G", Street "D", Street "QQ" and "Street FFF". Street "A" shall be widened an additional 8 feet to provide for a bus turnout at all of the above locations. b. Bus stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both sides of Hunte Parkway adjacent to the intersections with Street "E" and south Street "A". Bus shelters as approved by the City Engineer shall be provided along both sides of EastLake Parkway adjacent to the intersection with Street "E" or appropriate alternative locations. 14. Right turn lanes shall be provided on Street "A" at the intersections of Street "A" with Street "D" and south Street "A" with Hunte Parkway. A right turn lane shall be provided on EastLake Parkway at its intersection with Street "E". 15. a. All streets within the multi-family developments and the access road to Unit 29 shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans for said developments. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private streets. b. Private streets in units 1 and 2 (single family detached units) shall meet City standards for public streets. c. All subdivisions proposing private streets with controlled access devices, such as gates, shall contain the following features: (1) Gates shall be approved by the City Engineer. Gates shall be located to provide sufficient room to queue up without interrupting traffic on public streets. (2) A turn around shall be provided at the location of the gate. The size and location of said turn around shall be approved by the City Engineer. (3) The border between public street and private street shall be delineated through the use of distinctive pavement. (4) Provisions shall be made for emergency vehicle access. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 6 16. All the streets shown on the subject tentative map within t~e subdivision boundary, except as described above, shall be dedicated for public use. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment for said streets shall be reflected on the improvements plans for the subject subdivision or any unit thereof. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for public streets. 17. The owner shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the subdivision as shown on the tentative map. Said easement shall extend 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk except on major roads, where said easement shall extend for 20 feet behind the right-of-way. 18. The owner shall grant to the City a 10 foot sidewalk easement adjacent to the property line for the installation of a meandering sidewalk at the following locations: a. Otay Lakes Road along the full length of the frontage of Unit l?. b. EastLake Parkway - along the frontage of Units 29, 34 and 32 (north of the intersection of "E" Street). c. Street E - Between EastLake Parkway and Street - along the frontaqe of Unit 25. - Between Street A and Hunte Parkway - along the frontage of Units 28, 29, 37 and 39. 19. Prior to the approval of any final map for subject subdivision or any unit thereof, the subdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required improvements for that unit. If the developer requests the City to use its powers to acquire said off-site right-of-way, the developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. 20. The developer shall grant to the City 1' control lots adjacent to the following streets: a. South end of EastLake Parkway. b. South end and east side of Hunte Parkway. c. Both ends of Street A. d. Both ends of Orange Avenue. e. West end and southerly side of Palomar Street. f. Both sides of Orange Avenue. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 7 21. Striping plans shall be provided for the following streets: Street "A", Street "D", Street "E", EastLake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Orange Avenue, Otay Lakes Road and Palomar Street. Striping plans shall be approved in conjunction with improvement plans for said streets. 22. Prior to the approval of any final subdivision map which includes a portion of the streets listed below, the developer shall submit plans demonstrating the feasibility of the extension of the said streets: a. EastLake Parkway - from Palomar Street to Orange Avenue. b. Hunte Parkway - from Otay Lakes Road to East "H" Street. c. Palomar Street - from the subject subdivision a minimum distance of 1,O00 ft. westerly. d. Orange Avenue - a minimum distance of 1,000 ft. westerly. 23. a. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual to include, but not be limited to, dry lane requirements. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. b. 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 (#1797 as amended). c. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 24. a. 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. b. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or to an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. 25. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. 26. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, state and local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 8 27. A paved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. 28. The developer shall grant easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of any final map requiring those facilities. Easements shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but in no case, less than l0 feet. 29. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. 30. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or East "H" Street exceed the levels of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds. 31. a. The property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of the drainage channel in Telegraph Canyon. b. The property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subject property. c. The property owner shall enter into an agreement wherein he agrees to not protest formation of an assessment district for the construction of street improvements to connect Orange Avenue and Palomar Street to existing improvements to the west of the subject property and to not protest inclusion of the subject improvements as projects in the Eastern Territories Development Impact Fee system. 32. a. All sanitary sewer facilities required for development of any lot, unit or phase shall be guaranteed prior to recordation of a subdivision map for said lot, unit or phase. b. The developer shall provide for the costs associated with maintenance of the sewer pump stations prior to approval of any subdivision maps which shall require said pump stations to provide sanitary sewer service. c. The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in a foreign basin prior to approval of any subdivision map which shall require any sewage to be transferred from an existing basin into another basin. The permission shall be in the form of an agreement whereby the City shall agree to such transfer, and the developer shall agree to the construction of City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 9 certain improvements in the system that will accept said sewage and to the circumstances under which said permission may be revoked. 33. Prior to the approval of any final map for any lot or unit, the owner shall guarantee the construction of all improvement (streets, sewers, drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to such lot or unit in accordance with City standards. 34. Prior to approval of any subdivision map for single family residential use. The developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations. 35. A 20 foot wide landscaped buffer zone shall be provided along both sides of EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway within the subdivision, said landscaped buffer zone shall be indicated on the Final Subdivision Map as reserved for future street to facilitate future widening. 36. Off-site cumulative transportation impacts shall be mitigated to insignificant levels by participating in the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan on a fair share basis with other area developers. 37. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and on individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. Planning Department Conditions 38. a. Applicant shall request the formation of an open space district. Maintenance of specific areas may be required to be performed by the master homeowner's association. Open space slopes shown adjacent to public and private neighborhood parks shall be included in the established maintenance program. b. Park dedication and improvement credit for private parks (up to 50%) may be considered subject to approval of improvements, park acreage and activity areas provided. c. Development of all public and private park areas receiving park credit designated on the subdivision map shall be subject to the approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation. Said approval shall comply with the standards listed in Section 17.10.050 of the Municipal Code. d. Maintenance and credit for the proposed open space trail system shall be subject to approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The trail shall consist of an approved D.G. base. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page l0 e. Park dedication credit for the community park shall not include the slope area adjacent to proposed #125; however, credit shall be given when park improvements in excess of the Municipal Code requirements are provided. f. Any PAD fees to be waived shall be done so upon completion of parks or bonded guarantees of park completion. Bonds provided to the Department of Real Estate may be sufficient guarantee for private park improvements. g. No waiver of Residential Construction Tax is made or implied by approval of this map. Waivers of Residential Construction Tax may be considered for park improvements made in excess of City standards. 39. Park acreage of 30.8 acres shall be provided subject to the approval of park improvement plans by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 40. The open space corridor encompassing the SDG&E easement and the San Diego water line shall be incorporated into adjacent land use plans as usable open space and/or parking. The adjacent land use lots shall be graded to accomplish an acceptable interface. 41. The 5:1 grading shown on EastLake Parkway (reference sheet #2) shall be eliminated and shown as 3:1. 42. A minimum 15 ft. wide landscaped area shall be provided between the sidewalk and wall areas created along single-family areas on Street "A". NOTE: Down slopes shall commence at a minimum distance of 10 ft. from the public sidewalk, Alternate tree plantings in approved concrete cone root containers will be considered for limited areas. 43. Copies of proposed CC&R's shall be filed with the City. 44. A low and moderate income housing program with an established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate shall be implemented subject to the approval of the City's housing coordinator. NOTE: A 1% change resulting in 4% low and 6% moderate is deemed an acceptable tolerance. 45. All paved access to sewer and drainage outlets shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 46. A minimum of three church sites totaling 7 acres shall be designated prior to recordation of the final map. 47. Open space easements shown at the rear of various lots backing onto the golf course shall be included in the golf course maintenance program. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page ll 48. All lots adjacent to intersections subject to road widening requirements shall require further review by the Planning Director to determine acceptability. 49. School development shall be phased to provide facilities with adequate capacities to serve residential occupancy. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District has been formed by the respective school districts. 50. Provide street names on the tentative map. 51. A conceptual landscape plan, together with a water management plan, shall be provided prior to City Council approval of the tentative map and subject to the approval of City's Landscape Architect. 52. Development of all parcels shall be in accordance with EastLake Greens SPA Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Design Manual. 53. The developer shall annex all areas within the subdivision boundaries prior to recordation of any final map. 54. The phasing plan shall be designed to connect interior subdivisions within Phase I to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 55. All lots without approved private or public access shall be shown as a single lot. 56. The open space shown adjacent to easterly side of Route 125 corridor shall be dedicated to the City across its entirety for future transfer to the State of California as part of future freeway right-of-way. School District has option of putting in retaining wall across the high school site. 57. Unit 14 lots shall not receive final map approval without approval of a precise plan. 58. Orange Avenue corridor design shall be subject to approval of the Director of Planning regarding grading, slope grading, landscaping and fencing. 59. All lots in Units 4, 7, and 8 shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide and 20% of lots in Units ll and 13 shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide. A minimum of twenty (20) percent of all lots within Units 4, 7, and 8, ll, and 13 are intended to accommodate one-story units or units with a one-story plateline along the street frontage. Said one-story units shall be placed on lots with a minimum width of 50 feet. Any units displaced as a result of revision to the subdivision may be considered for transfer to another unit within EastLake Greens. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 12 60. Major entry points to the EastLake Greens development shall require approval of the Director of Planning with respect to grading, slope gradient and landscaping. 61. All of the open space lots shall be dimensioned (see Loop Street "A" adjacent to Units 14, 39 and 13). 62. Open space lots adjacent to private parks shall be included in the private parks to be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. 63. A water agreement with Otay Municipal Water District regarding terminal storage and water supply shall be required prior to approval of the final map. 64. A pedestrian bridge or an alternative acceptable to the City Engineer shall be constructed over Otay Lakes Road to connect the community trail from EastLake I to EastLake II. EIR Mitigation Measures - Planning 65. Residential land uses planned adjacent to or near commercial and industrial uses shall be adequately buffered. Necessary measures will include a wall or fence to decrease noise and increase privacy; a physical, vertical or horizontal separation between land uses, i.e., a road, slopes or a landscaped open space buffer; or some type of vegetative screen. Impacts occurring as a result of site-specific designs will be mitigated on a site-specific basis. (pg. 4-15) 66. In order to mitigate the site specific impacts, the following must be completed in accordance with the thresholds policy and the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan: a. Improve Telegraph Canyon Road between State Route 125 and the EastLake Greens/Trails boundary to six-lane prime arterial standards. b. Construct Hunte Parkway and EastLake Parkway as major roads between Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. c. Construction of a southbound State Route 125 to eastbound Telegraph Canyon Road loop ramp at the State Route 125/Telegraph Canyon Road intersection or extend State Route 125 South to East Palomar Street (which would connect to the EastLake II street system). (pg. 4-37) 67. The on-site water storage tank shall receive additional landscaping. This shall include the use of additional vegetation within the site compound to obscure the tank itself, as well as exterior landscaping of the perimeter fence to provide a more aesthetic screen. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 13 68. Residential units in the vicinity of the SDG&E transmission line shall be spaced and oriented to minimize views of those facilities. The 50-foot buffer along both sides of the roadway traversing the northern site boundary shall receive sufficient landscaping to effectively screen development associated with Eas~_ake I. Additionally, residential units in the northern project site shall be spaced and oriented to minimize views to the north where appropriate. 69. A preliminary geotechnical report has been prepared for the EastLake Greens property by San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc. (1986). This report contains various recommendations to provide adequate surface and subsurface drainage and erosion control that shall be incorporated into the project design. Recommended measures include, but are not limited to, the following: Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Surface runoff into downslope natural areas and graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via nonerosive devices (i.e., paved swales and storm drains). Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface waters away from proposed structures to approved drainage facilities. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of two percent should be maintained and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities, grainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of proposed structures. 70. Subdrains shall be placed under all fill located in existing drainage courses at identified or potential seepage areas. Specific locations shall be evaluated in the field during grading with general subdrain locations indicated on the approved grading plan. The subdrain installation shall be reviewed by the engineering geologist prior to fill placement. 71. Drainage devices are required behind stabilization fills to minimize the build-up of hydrostatic and/or seepage forces. (See Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations, San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc. (1986) for details and recommended locations of these backdrains.) Depending on slope height, at least one tier of drains would be required for approximately every 30 feet of slope height. Drains may also be needed at contacts between permeable and non-permeable formations. 72. Slopes shall be planted with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect immediately following grading. Erosion control and drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 14 73. Water shall not be allowed to run over the top of or flow down graded or natural slopes. 74. Devices constructed to drain and protect slopes, including brow ditches, berms, retention basins, terrace drains (if utilized) and down drains shall be maintained regularly, and in particular, should not be allowed to clog so that water can flow unchecked over slope faces. Subdrain outlets shall be maintained to prevent burial or other blockage. 75. To ensure that significant and potentially unique fossils and paleontological resources are not destroyed without examination and analysis, it shall be required that a qualified paleontologist monitor the initial grading activities during development of the EastLake Greens site. 76. a. Walls and/or berms shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning to reduce noise exposure to acceptable levels onsite. The applicant has proposed an optional 5-foot fence enclosing the perimeter of the residential boundary (Figure 2-10), and the 5-foot wall height was factored into the model to analyze the effectiveness of such a wall on the significant noise impacts projected onsite. In some cases, a 5-foot wall height was determined not to be required and a lower wall height was evaluated. It was determined that a 5-foot barrier along the top of slope on portions of the eastern side of EastLake Parkway and portions of the internal loop road, and contiguous to the northern and southern entry roads, would reduce projected onsite noise levels below 65dB(A) CNEL (Figure 4-17). A 3-foot barrier would also be required along the central golf course road to further attenuate onsite noise levels. Noise levels at the park could be reduced through the incorporation of barriers of minimal height (i.e., 1 to 2 feet). Walls are not recommended because of aesthetic considerations and because the attenuation required is only two decibels. Attenuation at the park could be achieved by raising the pad elevations near the contributing roadways by 2 feet instead of incorporating a barrier. The barriers along residential portions of the site should consist of walls, earth berms, or a combination of walls and berms. Noise levels above 65 dB(A) and below 75 dB(A) CNEL are considered compatible with the proposed commercial area in the northwest corner of the project area and no barriers are required to attenuate the noise levels in this area of the site. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 15 Based on the current grading plan, the identified noise walls would mitigate the projected exterior noise levels below the required 65 CNEL standard and to a level of insignificance with the exception of the park where slight exceedances would occur. If the pad elevation is raised, as recommended, no adverse noise impacts would occur onsite. b. For those portions of the site exposed to 60 CNEL or greater (identified in Figure 4-17), an interior acoustical analysis will be required once building plans and site plans are made available to ensure the use of appropriate construction materials to attenuate the interior noise levels below a level of significance. C. DISCUSSION General Lotting of Area The EastLake Greens SPA area comprises 830.5 acres and is proposed to be developed with a maximum of 3609 dwelling units. The site is devoted to 412.4 acres of residential uses and 418.1 acres of non-residential, including streets, open space, golf course, high school, elementary school, parks, commercial and public quasi-public. The residential portion of the site is divided into several different residential projects. They are as follows: 1. Estate Lots. Units 1 and 2 are located on the golf course and consist of 54 and 43 lots respectively. Unit 1 lots range in size from 7,800 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. with an average pad size between 7,000 and 8,000 sq. ft. Unit 2 lots are similar in lot size and pad size. Unit 1 access is from an internal street extending from the golf course clubhouse area to the southerly extent of the major loop street. Unit 2 gains access directly from the major loop street. Both Units 1 and 2 are proposed as private, gate-guarded communities. 2. Standard Lots. Units 3, 4, 5 and 6 represent 6,000, 5,000, 5,000, and 6,000 sq. ft. lots for single-family detached homes. The gross density ranges from 4 to 5 du/ac, on these units. The development area for these units is relatively flat, so the respective pad sizes approximate the overall lot size. The total number of lots for each unit is 103, 91, 107 and 81 respectively, for a total of 382 lots. Portions of Units 3, 5 and 6 abut the golf course. Access is provided via the major loop street to these units. 3. Small lots - 3,300 to 5,000 feet Units 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 13 and 14 represent small lot single-family detached home products on 3300 to 5000 sq. ft. lots. Units 9, lO, and 12 are not proposed for subdivision into individual lots at this time because they are scheduled for development in later City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 16 phases of the project in the southerly portion of the project adjacent to Orange Avenue. Unit 7, 8, ll, 13 have some lots abutting the golf course. The total number of lots in Units 4, 7, and 8 may be reduced when the lot widths are increased to a minimum width of fifty feet. Staff is not recommending lot widths less than fifty feet for these single-story detached units due to the need for adequate lot width to accommodate architectural variety, curb cuts and driveways, utilities, front yard landscaping and on-street parking for visitors and guests. Twenty percent of the lots in Units ll and 13 are recommended for lot widths of fifty feet to accommodate single-story homes. Unit 14 is a 3300 sq. ft. lot size project located at EastLake Parkway and the entry street to the golf course clubhouse. A precise plan has been submitted to staff for this project which will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee; however, staff is satisfied with the preliminary design. All of these small lot, single-family detached units range in density from 6 du/ac to 6.6 du/ac with the exception of Unit 14 which is 7.4 du/ac. 4. Attached Product Lots Units 15, 16, 17 and 18 are intended to be attached unit projects that will require future submittal of tentative subdivision maps and site plans to be developed as planned residential developments. The only action occurring at this time is to establish the lot boundary and maximum number of residential units. 5. Townhouse Product Lots Units 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are townhouse projects ranging from 12 du/ac to 15 du/ac. Each of these units will require tentative subdivision maps and design review before actual development is permitted. These five units propose a total of 817 dwelling units. All of these units are located on EastLake Parkway, Nunte Parkway or the major loop street to separate traffic from the single-family areas located around the golf course. 6. Condominium Product Lots Units 24, 25 and 26 represent garden apartment type of densities and likewise would require additional tentative subdivision map and design review prior to development. Units 24 and 25 are located on EastLake Parkway at the entry points to the singl e-family neighborhoods. Units 24 and 25 contain llO and 163 units respectively. Unit 26 is a 22 du/ac project located on EastLake Parkway immediately south of the high school. This project is intended to provide a portion of the affordable housing requirement for the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page l? 7. High Density Condominium Lots Units 27 and 28 are planned at 31.9 du/ac and 2?.4 du/ac projects located on the golf course in close proximity to the golf course clubhouse. These two projects are intended to provide housing for active adults who want to live close to the clubhouse and recreational facilities. The applicant has agreed to maintain a view corridor across the end of Unit 28 to maintain a more open visual presentation to those approaching the clubhouse area along the 18th fairway. Detailed site design will be reviewed during subsequent tentative subdivision map processing. The total residential area of the EastLake Greens project totals 412.4 acres and a maximum of 3609 dwelling units as described above. PHASING The EastLake Greens subdivision is divided into three phases with various units provided within each phase. Phase lA includes the high school and community park site. Phase lB includes the retail commercial site and the northerly seven units (2, 7, ll, 13, 17, 19 and 22). Phase IC includes the remainder of the north half of the project including Units 5, 14 and 24. Phase ID starts the development of the southern half of the site and includes Units 1, 3, and 8. Phase II consists of the southwesterly portion of the site and includes Units 4, 9, 15, 20, 25, 26 as well as the quasi-public sites, elementary school, and neighborhood park site. Phase III is located at the southeasterly corner of the site adjacent to future Orange Avenue and includes Units 10, 12 and 16. STREET NAMES The applicant has submitted a list of street names which is being reviewed by the various City departments. Final approval of the street names is required by the Planning Commission; therefore, the names will come back at a later date for your consideration. LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING The Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan requires that each project over 50 units in size provide at least 10% of the total dwelling units for low and moderate income families. The EastLake Greens SPA Plan staff report discusses the status of low and moderate income housing program for EastLake I and EastLake Greens. A minimum of 361 dwelling units will be required to be designated for low and moderate income housing within the Greens. The details of the EastLake Program regarding location of affordable units, qualification of buyers, maximum housing costs, and monitoring will be formalized in an agreement between the City and EastLake Development Company prior to recordation of the final map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 18 CIRCULATION AND STREET I~ROVEMENTS Approval of this subdivision involves a variety of on-site and off-site street improvements. The on-site street improvements are listed in the conditions of approval. These streets are consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and conform to the City Standards for Streets. The off-site street improvements are documented in the EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and are tied to increments of development in a phased program. OTHER REQUIRED FACILITIES AND FEES The project is also providing sites for a new high school, elementary school, community park, neighborhood parks and church sites. Provisions have been made in EastLake I to provide a 1 acre fire station site and a library site. The EastLake Greens Development Agreement will further provide that the project shall be subject to supplemental Development Impact Fees for fire, library and other City facilities when such fees are enacted into law in the future. The current DIF fee requires payment of fees for each dwelling unit and commercial/office/industrial structure to pay for regional street facilities on a fair share basis. In addition to DIF fees, EastLake will be required to pay Residential Construction Tax fees in the amount of $1,521,750. LANDSCAPING The general landscaping requirements for the subdivision are outlined in the EastLake Greens SPA Plan. The landscape improvements for street medians, public and private parks, open space areas, golf course, and neighborhood entries are addressed in concept in the SPA Plan and conditions of approval of this subdivision will require approval by the City of detailed landscape and irrigation plans for landscaping. In addition, the conditions of approval on the subdivision map require approval of a water management plan to encourage groundskeepers, gardeners and other landscape maintenance personnel to conserve water in every possible way. Individual property owners will be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping within their privately owned areas and homeowners associations will be responsible for various areas within condominium developments. An Open Space Maintenance District will be formed to provide for common maintenance areas such as the private park, slope banks and parkways. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 19 FINDINGS 1. Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake Greens Tract 88-3 is found to be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council based on the following findings: a. Land Use Element The General Plan designates the EastLake Greens areas for Low-Medium Residential as well as commercial, public, quasi-public (schools, parks, churches) and some open space. The proposed 3,609 residential units is within the higher density (between target and maximum) range of the General Plan residential designation, including density transfers from the park, school, and golf course to the residential area. b. Circulation Element All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and Development Agreement. c. Housing Element The proposed project will provide a minimum of 1~ affordable housing including a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family, townhouses, condominium and various apartment densities that will provide a wide spectrum of housing prices for persons of various incomes. d. Parks and Recreation Element The subdivision will provide approximately 40 acres of improved community and neighborhood parks in accordance with locations and standards of the General Plan. The required park acreage for EastLake Greens is 29.2 acres. e. Public Facilities Element The project is obligated in the conditions of approval to participate in providing the water facilities, wastewater facilities and drainage facilities required by the policies of the General Plan. These include emergency water storage reservoir, construction of a 50 million gallon facility by OMWD, provisions for additional wastewater facilities by parallel sewer pipelines and constructing on-site detention basins to reduce peak storm flows. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 14, 1989 Page 20 f. Open Space and Conservation Element The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the element. There are no land resources, water resources, plant or animal resources or open space areas identified for preservation in the General Plan for this site. g. Safety Element The project site is considered a seismically active area, although there are no known active faults on or adjacent to the property. The fire protection facilities and services needed to serve the project have been reviewed by the Fire Department. Other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with safety policy. The project will increase the need for additional police and fire personnel, however, the City is planning to meet the need with additional revenues provided by the project. h. Noise Element Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report adequately address the noise policy in the General Plan. All dwelling units within the project will be required to be designed so as to not exceed the interior noise level of 45 dBA. Additionally, all exterior private open space will be shielded by a combination of earth, berm, wall, and/or buildings to achieve a 65 dBA noise level for outside private areas. WPC 6318P June 9, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Planning Director It is suggested that you concentrate on reviewing the SPA Plan and Public Facilities Plan. The remaining documents contained in this notebook are guidelines for future actions. /je