HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2000/05/17
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 17, 2000
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CAll TO ORDER
ROLL CAllIMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
AIPROVA L oP MIAlIA.1"'"e:-S
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
.4 f r i L / 2. 1 2,.ot>()
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 three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following application filed by the Superior
Ready Mix Concrete for 1855 Maxwell Road.
Staff: Brian Hunter, Community Development Department
2.
REPORT:
Comprehensive General Plan update process
Staff: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Review upcoming meeting calendar.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to a Planning Commission meeting on May 24, 2000,
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABIlITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585-5647, California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present
Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas,
Cortes and O'Neill
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist
Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner
Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Read into the record by Chair Willett
No public input.
1.
ZA V-00-09; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a
wall height variance request.
Chair Willett stepped down from the dais due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Thomas
presided.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that the applicant is appealing the
Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a wall height variance for an existing 8 foot high
masonry block wall that runs along the eastern lot line. The project is bordered by single family
residential to the north, east and west, and Eastlake Golf Course to the south.
The masonry block wall is approximately 70 feet long and runs 3 feet parallel to the eastern
property line, and at one point is as close as 20", encroaching 16" into the 3 foot sideyard
setback. The wall, which has a stucco finish on the applicant's side and is unfinished on the
adjacent property's side, has an additional 3-foot high lattice on top of the wall, for a total of 11-
feet high,
The applicant has agreed to remove the plywood portion of the wall, but wants to maintain the 8-
foot high masonry block portion, therefore, he is seeking a variance from the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code (Section 19.58.150) and the Eastlake II SPA (Section 11.6A), which only allow 6-
foot high walls.
On December 14, 1999, the Eastlake II Community Association conditionally approved the wall
height variance with the following conditions:
. The masonry wall shall be approved as a variance, however, the wall must be finished on
both sides and not exceed 8 feet high;
. The existing wood fence 7' 3.5" high on the eastern property line shall be returned to its
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
April 12, 2000
original design (height [5'2"] and materials) as installed by the develop;
. Obtain all permits as required by the City of Chula Vista, and
. All corrective actions must occur within 90 days from the date of the letter.
Staff Recommendation: Staff was unable to make the required legal findings to grant the
requested variance, therefore, staff recommends adoption of Resolution ZAV-00-09, which would
uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny a wall height variance at 1173 Crystal
Downs Drive.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Castaneda asked for clarification on the sideyard setback and what would be
allowed in terms of a shared communal fence on the sideyard. He also asked if a building permit
was obtained for the 8 foot high block wall.
Ms, Vander Bie responded that there is an existing perimeter lot line fence, which was installed
throughout the development by the developer and the sideyard setback from the lot-line fence is
3 feet.
Ms. Vander Bie further stated that no building permit was obtained for the existing 8 foot high
block wall.
Commissioner O'Neill asked what the Eastlake Architectural Committee's position is on this
project.
Ms. Vander Bie stated that the architectural committee has conditionally approved the 8 foot
high block wall only if building permits are obtained, and the block wall facing the neighbor
must be have a stucco finish.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
Juan Quemado, project designer for Mr. Kaloyan stated that the Eastlake Homeowners
Association has granted them a variance for the 8 foot high masonry block wall with the
condition that building permits be obtained. Additionally, the applicant will remove the lattice
extension on the existing block wall. He further stated that it is the applicant's desire to have the
Planning Commission view this as an architectural feature rather than a wall or fence. The
applicant considers this wall as an enhancement and/or extension to the existing living area and
adds more privacy to the back yard,
Mr. Quemado stated that they solicited input from the neighbor to East and subsequently he
submitted a letter expressing his concern with the structural portion of the wall. The applicant
has hired an engineer and is working with the Building Department to ensure compliance with all
of the building requirements.
Next door neighbor (no speaker slip and cannot make out what his name is on tape recording)
1169 Crystal Downs Drive, Chula Vista, stated that the wall with the unfinished stucco on his
side has been up for approximately 2.5 years. He would like to see the wall reduced to 6 feet
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
April 12, 2000
and have the City officials ensure that the remaining six foot high wall is in compliance to the
building code.
Public Hearing Closed 6:30
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director explained thatthe regulatory document for this project
is the SPA regulations which contain the criteria to be used by both the Zoning Administrator
and the Planning Commission. The SPA regulations define a wall fence or hedge as being not
more than 6 feet in height and a structures is defined as accessory buildings or structures attached
or detached used wholly or in part for living purposes,
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he is not convinced that the masonry wall is a structure, as
opposed to a fence or wall, and the record shows that the applicant has not considered the
aesthetic impacts on his neighbor's property and has not acted in good faith with the City
because he neglected to obtain a building permit when the masonry wall was first built,
therefore, he upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision.
Commissioner Hall stated that he concurs with Commissioner Castaneda's comments and urged
the applicantto work with City officials to being the wall into compliance with Code regulations.
Commissioner Ray stated that the letter from the Eastlake Community Association states that the
fountain in the side yard may not exceed the height of the fence, and asked if staff knew the
height of the water fountain.
Commissioner Ray further stated that in his opinion, the applicant has not acted in good faith
with the City, his neighbor, or the Eastlake Association because clearly, he has circumvented
getting the appropriate permits and permission to proceed with construction, therefore, he too,
upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision,
Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the dead non-maintainable space between the lot
line fence and the inner wall. The most he could recommend is that the 8 foot wall be reduced
to 6 feet, and that the wall be stuccoed fully on both sides.
MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution ZAV-00-09
upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the wall height variance a 1173 Crystal
Downs Drive. Motion carried with Chair Willett abstaining.
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Recommending that the City Council grant a twenty percent (20%)
density bonus, eliminate the required guest parking, and allow 16
percent of the required parking as compact parking spaces to
facilitate the construction of a maximum of ten (10) low-income
dwelling units for an existing 40 unit multifamily residential
development known as Kingwood Manor, located at 54-94 Kingswood
Drive to be developed by IPMG, Inc.
Background: Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist reported that on Maych 22,
2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public comments regarding
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
April 12, 2000
this request for a density bonus and modification of certain development standards for the
proposed development of ten (10) additional low-income dwelling units to an existing 40 unit
development. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to allow staff
additional time to provide information regarding parking, traffic and calls for service,
The applicant has subsequently revised their site plan to address privacy and parking issues
raised by the surrounding property owners. The applicant is requesting some modifications to
the City's Parking Standards as it relates to guest parking and compact spaces.
Parking
Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code the addition of the 10 dwelling units would require a
total 100 parking spaces, or 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit. This requirement is
inclusive of guest parking as well as handicap parking.
The proposed project (10 additional units) does meet the requirements of the Municipal Code.
The applicant is requesting a modification of the compact parking of 1 compact space for every
10 standard spaces. The applicant is proposing 17 compact spaces, an increase of 7 compact
spaces in order to comply with handicap parking requirements. Presently, 2 spaces are reserved
for handicap parking. The proposed 107 parking spaces would increase the handicap parking
to 5 spaces.
Ms. Hines clarified that although throughout report and resolution, it talks about the elimination
of guest parking, it is somewhat misleading because the project does meet the requirements of
the Municipal Code. The guest parking is provided within the 100 spaces required by the
project. What the applicant is requesting, is leniency of the more stringent requirements of the
original Precise Plan, which required 2,5 spaces per dwelling unit vs. the 2 parking spaces per
dwelling unit that the code allows.
The Precise Plan would require 25 more parking spaces than the requirements of the Municipal
Code. Based upon field observations conducted by staff and the inventory of vehicles owned by
current residents, the parking lot is currently under-utilized with a maximum of 61 spaces being
utilized by vehicles owned by residents.
At site visits conducted at various times throughout the day and week staff found no more than 57
spaces being occupied of the 100 spaces currently available, therefore, staff believes that the
proposed parking is sufficient to accommodate residents of the community as well as guests.
Traffic
The residents' traffic and on-street parking concerns is not new, and Engineering staff has visited
this neighborhood on several occasions. As in the past, based on staff's observations, no unusual
traffic conditions have been observed, particularly during peak hours when school starts and
when it dismisses. While this project will generate additional vehicles and traffic, staff does not
anticipate any significant impact on traffic.
The Kingswood DriveITobias Drive has been one of great concern for the community and there
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
April 12, 2000
have been requests in the past as well as in the present to provide stop or yield signs or some
other measure to reduce vehicular speed like speed bumps. Based on Traffic Engineering
assessments of that intersection, it does not meet the requirements for installing the
aforementioned traffic control measures.
To improve visibility at this intersection, Traffic Engineering will paint the curbs red on the
northeast corner of this intersection.
Calls for Service
During the March 22"d public hearing, it was reported that during the period beginning on
September 1998 to February 2000, there were 103 calls for service for Kingwood Manor.
Although this number appears to be high, this is typical for apartment communities. Of the 103
calls, 33 calls were regarding criminal activities, 21 were for noise/disturbances, and 49 were for
other service calls such as welfare check of residents, runaway juveniles, pedestrian stops, and
911 hang ups.
It should be noted that Kingswood Manor is in the process of being certified under the City of
Chula Vista's Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. This program is designed to help tenants,
owners and managers of rental property keep drugs and other illegal activity off their property.
This program teaches property managers and owner how to properly screen applicants as well as
the eviction of problem tenants and it is anticipated that there will be a significant decrease in
the number of calls for service with their participation in this program.
Richard Price, Crime Free Multi-Housing Coordinator for the Chula Vista Police Department
addressed the Commission and gave an overview of the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program,
which is new to Chula Vista and has been existence for shortly over one year.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution and recommend that
the City Council approve the requested 20% increase in density, the elimination of the required
guest parking, and the allowance of 16% of the required parking be compact parking spaces to
facilitate the construction of a maximum of 10 low-income dwelling units for an existing 40 unit
multifamily residential development, known as Kingwood Manor, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in the Council Resolution.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner O'Neill asked what the parking requirements would be based on a project
consisting of 50, three bedroom apartments units.
Ms. Hines responded that in accordance with the Municipal Code, 2 spaces per dwelling unit
would be required, or 100 spaces total including the guest and handicap parking.
Ms. Hines further stated thatthe applicant is proposing to assign 1 parking space per unit and the
remaining parking spaces would remain open for a second vehicle that the tenant may have and
for guest parki ng,
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
April 12, 2000
Public Hearing Opened 7:45
Danny Dabby, 11230 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, CA, stated he believes the applicant has
addressed all of the issues that were raised at the previous meeting. With regard to the privacy
issue, the buildings have been re-oriented so that they face in a direction (north/south) so as to
minimize the portion of the building that overlooks other properties.
Mr. Dabby reaffirmed that there is ample parking and the gates remain opened during the day for
easy accessibility during the day for tenants and guests. At dusk, the gates are closed for security
reasons, therefore, any visitor would need to make prior arrangements with the tenant.
The improvements like painting of the buildings, refurbishing of the swimming pool and new
pool furniture, landscape enhancements have been completed and a lighting pole will be
installed to help mitigate the poor lighting in the parking lot. In addition, all of the buildings
wi II be re-roofed
Daniel Goudy, Architect, 2210 Meyers Avenue, Escondido, CA, reviewed the design of the
project, including landscape enhancements and redesigning building layouts to create open
space.
Bill Franklin 76 Sherwood, Chula Vista, CA neighborhood resident for 16 years stated that
although he appreciates the applicant's efforts in mitigating some of the concerns raised atthe last
meeting, he is still concerned with traffic and visibility impacts created by the project. Mr.
Franklin suggested utilizing a vegetation sound barrier along the swimming pool area.
Steve Hayes, 68 Sherwood Street, Chula Vista, stated he was encouraged at the applicant's
efforts to mitigate the concerns previously raised. Mr. Hayes is not convinced that the traffic
studies truly reflect accurately the traffic impacts because they are probably done Monday
through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 to 5:00. The traffic studies should be conducted
during off hours when those vehicles are in the parking lot and the street.
Public Hearing Closed 8:00
Commissioner Ray suggested that a phone could be installed at the gate entrance to be used after
hours to contact tenants to allow their guests to enter into the parking lot.
Mr. Dabby stated that he has considered this and is in the process of getting cost estimates.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that taking into consideration the neighbors comments and
concerns with having a two-story building right next to their property line, Commissioner O'Neill
recommended moving the footprint of the building from 10 feet to 20 feet away from the
property line.
The applicant agreed to set the building 20 feet from the property.
MSC (Ray/Castaneda) (7-0-0-0) the Planning Commission adopt resolution and recommend that
the City Council approve the requested 20% increase in density, the elimination ofthe required
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
April 12, 2000
guest parking, and the allowance of 16% of the required parking be compact parking spaces to
facilitate the construction of a maximum of 10 low-income dwelling units for an existing 40
unit multifamily residential development, known as Kingwood Manor, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained in the Council Resolution with the following
conditions:
a. that an intercom system be installed at the gated entrance to the parking lot.
b. That a solid sound barrier wall with landscaping be constructed along the pool side of the
project.
c. That the setback from the back of the proposed building be increased from 10 feet to 20
feet; and
d. That the Kingwood Manor apartments complete the certification to the Crime-Free Multi-
Housing Program prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06; Consideration of an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of
the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of
the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of
dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access. Pacific Bay
Homes.
Commissioner Ray excused himself from the dais due to a previously scheduled engagement.
Background: Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner, reported that Rolling Hills Ranch, a master
planned community formerly known as Salt Creek Ranch consists of 1,200 acres located north of
the existing Eastlake Business Center. It is accessed primarily from East H Street, with secondary
access from Lane Avenue and Hunte Parkway via Otay Lakes Road.
In 1990 the City Council approved the General Development Plan with 2,800 dwelling units and
other support land uses which include:
a) two school sites (middle and elementary schools)
b) a fire station site
c) two park sites (1 neighborhood and 1 community park)
d) two community purpose facility sites; and
e) approximately 450 acres of open space.
In 1990 the City Council approved the Salt Creek Ranch SPA with basically the same land use
components, minus 200 dwelling units less than the General Development Plan.
The adopted SPA Plan and its regulatory components (the Planned Community District
Regulations and the Public Facilities Financing Plan) outline more specifically the development of
the Master Planned Community and established development parameters that insure that all on-
site and off-site public facilities needed to support the project are provided in conjunction or in
advanced of development.
-,-- '--_.,_.,-~.---- ------- ,.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
April 12, 2000
The SPA requires several on-site and off-site improvements, including a facility connecting the
project to SR-125 located tothe north. The SPA limits the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to
the first 1,257 dwelling units (Phase I), until SR-125 is constructed and open for public access.
Subsequently, in 1992, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for 2,616
dwelling units subject to certain conditions of approval. One of the conditions required that
Phase I of the project be reduced from 1,257 to 1,137 dwelling units in order to mitigate traffic
impacts identified in the traffic report prepared for the Tentative Map,
The development phasing has been modified, as required by the Tentative Map conditions of
approval. With the exception of the construction of SR-125, most of the public facilities
prescribed in the Public Facilities Financing Plan have been completed or bonded.
Presently, Rolling Hills has obtained Final Maps for the entire Phase I of the project, and has
obtained 765 building permits and sold approximately 500 homes.
It is important to note that due to more precise engineering of the site and the inclusion of some
neighborhood amenities, Phase I has lost approximately 170 dwelling units for a total of 963
instead of 1,137 dwelling units at the end of completion of Phase I.
The applicant has requested that the cap imposed on Salt Creek Ranch be deleted and that they
be allowed to proceed subject to the Growth Management threshold standards adopted for the
entire eastern territory.
Traffic Analvsis
Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the proposed amendment is to revised the Salt
Creek Ranch Tentative Map Condition of Approval No.1 and 3. These conditions limited the
project development to 1,137 dwelling units. The proposed amendment to the Tentative Map
conditions and to the related section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan will increase the
development limit to 1,665 equivalent dwelling units.
The traffic studies conducted in 1990 identified the project's Phase Traffic demands and
recommended that the development scenarios adopted by the GDP and SPA Plan be modified to
reduce the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening, from 1,257 to
1,137 (reduction of 120 units). The intent of the building cap and the recommended reduction
was to insure that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection East H Street and Hidden Vista
Drive not exceed Level of Service D,
Lindscott Law and Greenspan Engineers conducted two studies to determine if and how much
street capacity is available on East H Street. The initial study was to analyze the short-term impact
of all on-going land development projects on the East H Street roadway section as defined by the
City GMOC standard,
The second study was to identify the impacts of the proposed amendment on various
intersections along East H Street in order to ensure that the existing building cap would not be
violated.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 9 -
April 12, 2000
The study concluded that by July 2004 with anticipated growth, East H Street will not meet the
City's Traffic Monitoring Program standards. By July 2004, East H Street was forecasted to
degrade to 3 hours of LOS D. Based on the anticipated growth rate, Rolling Hills Ranch would
have built 1,150 EDU by July 2004. However, staff recommended development limit for the
project to be at only 1,665 EDU's.
The Consultant also conducted an intersection analysis on four key intersections along East H
Street. The study concluded that the intersection of East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive would
degrade from two peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS C to two peak hours of LOS D
and one peak hour of LOS E if more than an additional 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137
development cap without improvements.
The segment and intersection analysis reports concluded that Rolling Hills Ranch development
can be allowed to proceed beyond the 1,137 to 1,467 EDU's at this time without significant
traffic impacts at the above mentioned intersections and segment. However, to mitigate potential
impacts beyond the 1,467 EDU's and be able to increase the development to the maximum of
1,665 EDU's recommended by staff, one of the following improvements needs to be constructed
and open for publ ic access:
o Provide an additional westbound thru lane at East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive
intersection; or
o Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street.
Mr. AI-Agha stated that is should be noted that if SR-125 is constructed from Olympic Parkway
north to SR-54, the project could develop beyond the 1,665 EDU's threshold cap to
accommodate project build out.
Staff recommendation:
1. Based on the Initial Study, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-
00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project.
2. Adopt attached Resolution PCS-99-06, recommending that the City Council approve the
proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision
Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City
Council Resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Hall question why the traffic analysis focused on traffic segments that were east of
I-B05 and up H Street, excluding the west segment toward Hilltop Drive,
Mr, AI-Agha responded that the scope of the study considered the project-direct impact and
general cumulative impact. The critical intersections that will be directly impacted by the project
Planning Commission Minutes
- 10 -
April 12, 2000
are the intersections at 1-805 and East H Street and some key intersections along East H Street.
Commissioner Hall further stated that he is not convinced that the traffic pattern that is now
causing the blockage on East H Street has a significant percentage that is coming from Otay
Ranch, and clarified that what is being discussed now is the East H Street traffic problem and the
future cumulative effect of all of the other developments.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. AI-Agha to elaborate on the Level of Service E that is contained
in staff's report.
Mr, AI-Agha stated that if more than 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap
without improvements, the section of East H Street, between Hidden Vista and 1-805 would be at
a Level of Service E during one peak hour (AM). This is based on a look-up table standard for
comparing volume on a standard street. The look up table is very conservative and is only used
for initial assessment but not for actually measuring the level of service.
Presently the volume on East H Street is approximately 63,000. Once you go beyond 60,000 you
are in Level Of Service D. The study is predicting approximately 3,300 ADT's, therefore, at one
point in the year 2004 it will get close to 77,000, which translates into a Level Of Service E,
Mr. AI-Agha further clarified that there are two limits which are being recommended, The initial
cap, which is 1,467 DU's and the pre-SR-125 limit, which is 1,665 DU's. The developer cannot
exceed the 1,467 initial cap unless Olympic Parkway is constructed. Once Olympic Parkway is
constructed, then the development can proceed to an additional 198 units and shall stop at 1,665
dwelling units until the construction of SR-125. Therefore, the limit is phased into two stages.
Commississioner Thomas asked what measures has the City considered if these projections occur
before the year 2004.
Mr. AI-Agha responded that the Growth Management Oversight is applied fairly and equally to
all developments and would stay on top of these projections. It could also recommend a
moratorium be imposed. The City is conducting traffic studies on an annual basis for the years
2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in order to avoid reaching the conditions in the year 2004 which
would make a moratorium inevitable,
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City is consistent in its restrictions across the board to other
developments i.e. San Miguel Ranch.
Mr. AI-Agha responded affirmatively i.e, for San Miguel Ranch, the development will be limited
to 675 to pre-SR-125 and will likely do the same for future developments.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that although the City could impose a moratorium on
development, it has no control over student enrollment populations for Southwestern College
and was a bit disconcerted to learn that although the traffic studies do factor in, on an aggregate
basis, the traffic generated by the College, it does not, however, address the student enrollment
number sfor evening classes,
Planning Commission Minutes
- 11 -
April 12, 2000
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director, stated that through discussions with the College on
another issue, they have indicated that they are moving toward capping their enrollment and
establishing satellite campuses at different sites away from the main Campus on Otay lakes Road,
Commissioner Hall inquired if the signal lights along East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road
are synchronized to allow optimum traffic flow and if so, is it included in the traffic study.
Mr. AI-Agha responded that they are synchronized on both roadways. The Caltrans segment may
not be in synch with the Cities system, however, they are, as well, synchronized to operate
optimally with their system on their segment of the interchanges. This information was included
in the traffic study,
Public Hearing Opened 8:35
Dave Gatzke, 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209, applicant, thanked staff and the Commissionerfor
their time in considering this proposal and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Gatzke
indicated that they are thoroughly aware of community concerns regarding increased traffic
congestion, They made a significant investment in traffic studies and have worked with staff for
over a year to fully analyzing the impact of this proposal.
The traffic studies do indicate that sufficient capacity exists to support this proposal and strongly
urge the Planning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation.
Public Hearing closed 8:50
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the myopic view on this whole issue of traffic
problems on East H Street and some of the mitigation measures. The whole picture is that these
are regional issues and SR-125 will need to be constructed and in service to alleviate some of the
gridlock on 1-805, therefore, he does not support granting any density or increases in DU's and
he does not support staff's recommendation.
Chair Willett asked for clarification on the widening of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive.
Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that the Mitigated Neg Dec offers
one of two alternatives for mitigation: 1) either the additional lane, or 2) the completion of
Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to where Palomar will be extended.
The Mitigated Neg Dec goes on to find that the widening of East H Street is infeasible, therefore,
the mitigation that is included is that prior to those additional units being allowed, Olympic
Parkway would need to be opened from the Sunbow boundary to what will be the future
Palomar intersection.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 12 -
April 12, 2000
Commissioner Castaneda stated he did not agree with Ms. Ponseggi's statement because before
those improvements are even built, we're granting a 330 increase in units.
Ms. Ponseggi responded that they can go to 330 additional units (for a total of 1,467) at this this
time without any impact, and they cannot exceed 1,665 until SR-125 is opened.
Mr. AI-Agha stated that it is important to note that the project won't reach the original cap of
1,137 until another year and a half from now based on their current building plan. Olympic
Parkway is financed and under construction and should be completed up to east Palomar by that
time.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that if that's the case, why don't we allow them to build the
1,137 and then if the improvements are completed, they can build the additional 330 units
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
Liz Jackson stated that part of that request is due to the fact that it takes a considerable amount of
time to plan and to implement infrastructure improvements prior to actually pulling a building
permit.
Prior to proceeding with Phase II grading for the property, their business partner would need
some type offinancial assurance that prior to spending 8 million dollars in improvements, there is
the ability to proceed with construction in the future. While we may not actually pull the
building permits, it takes approximately a year or so to map the project and then it takes time to
construct the improvements, design the product and build the houses themselves.
Ms. Jackson pointed out that Olympic Parkway is bonded for in its entirety.
Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Hall stated that he does not oppose and developer or development, but is not
convinced with that Olympic Parkway or any other arterial improvement is going to resolved the
long-term issues and he would like to see it happen first before he approves anything more than
what is already on the books.
MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (5-1-0-1) based on the Initial Study, adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration issued for 15-00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for
this project along with the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, U ensure
Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street. Motion
carried with Commissioner Hall voting against it.
MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (4-2-0-1) that the Planning Commission:
a. Adopted Resolution PCS 99-06 recommending that the City Council approve the
Planning Commission Minutes
- 13 -
April 12, 2000
proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of Sal Creek Ranch Tentative
Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public
Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the Draft City Council Resolution;
b. Include the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, " ensure
Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street,
and
c. Removing the language contained in the Public Facilities Financing Plan regarding
the H Street improvements.
Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Hall voting against.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT at
p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
I
Item
Meeting Date 05/17/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the following application filed by the
Superior Ready Mix Concrete for 1855 Maxwell Road:
Resolution PCM-OO-23 Amendment to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a concrete batch plant as an
allowed use.
STAFF CONTACT:
Brian Hunter, Community Development Department
The applicant, Superior Ready Mix Concrete, desired to submit an application for a special use permit for a concrete
batch plant on property located at 1855 Maxwell Road within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area.
Review of the existing ordinance goveming the site indicated that a concrete batch plant was not an allowed use,
either conditionally or by right. Therefore, an application for that use could not be accepted. Staff provided this
information to the applicant who desired to pursue the proposed use through application for an amendment to the
Implementation Plan.
The Planning and Environmental Manager of the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study
and has determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
.'*CBiFI....
The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area was formed in December 1983 in order to eliminate conditions of
blight which were impacting industrial development in the area. In 1983 this area represented the largest resource of
under-developed urbanized property in the City which could be used for industrial development, thereby improving
the City's employment and economic base. Economic forecasts at the time of project adoption projected a five acres
per year absorption rate. In actuality, over 80 acres have been developed over the past decade.
Adopt attached Resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista adopt the
Negative Declaration and deny the project in accordance with the attached Redevelopment Agency Resolution
based on the findings of fact contained therein.
The establishment of land uses within the Project Area is governed by the following provision within the Otay Valley
Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum:
All land uses prohibited by the I-L or I regulations shall be prohibited in the Project Area. The project site is zone I.P.
The I-L regulations (Section 19.44.050 A.1. of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) list as prohibited uses or processes
manufacturing uses and processes involving the primary production of products from raw materials, including the
following materials and uses: Asphalt, cement, charcoal and fuel briquettes. A concrete batch plant processes
cement with sand and gravel to make concrete. To allow this use, and support the amendment to the
Implementation Plan, it would be necessary to find conformance with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
Plan and the Implementation Plan. The following review is specific to this property and the proposed amendment.
/
fOdge 2. Item
Meeting Date 05/17/00
The Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1983 identified the following blighting conditions in the Project Area that this
property exhibits today:
Undeveloped, unproductive and underdeveloped properties throughout the Area. A concrete batch plant at
this location would be a continuation of the underdevelopment of this property when viewed in the iarger framework
of the Redevelopment and Implementation Plan which envisions an industrial park like development.
The lack of proper utilization of many properties within the Project Area boundaries resulting in development
constraints on a number of these properties, thus producing a stagnant and unproductive condition of land
which is otherwise potentially useful and valuable. A concrete batch plant may have a negative economic effect
on the surrounding properties by sending the message that the comprehensive vision of the Redevelopment Plan is
still premature.
The following objectives of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Five Year Implementation Plan for
Years 2000-2004 are applicable to the subject property:
The elimination of existing blighted conditions, be they properties or structures, and the prevention of
recurring blight in and about the Project Area. As noted previously, the concrete batch plant is viewed as an
underdevelopment of this site.
The development of property within a coordinated land use pattern of commercial, industrial, recreational,
and public facilities in the Project Area consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines
and requirements as set forth in the City's and County's adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The
batch plant is not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to
encourage community identity. It is the intent of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment plan and its Implementation
Plan and Design Manual Addendum to guide and promote the development of well-designed, well-ordered, and
economically sound industrial parks and land uses. The land uses envisioned by the plan include light
manufacturing facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, research institutions, and product-development plants. As
a general rule, the said plans and addendum contemplate and encourage the establishment of indoor or enclosed
operations. A concrete batch plant would not meet this criteria.
The achievement of a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern of architectural and urban
design principals deemed important by the community. A concrete batch plant generally exhibits a simple
utilitarian design that does not concern itself with architecture or urban design.
The above objectives were specifically developed to alleviate conditions of physical and economic blight which impede
development in the project area. The goal established for the project area in the Redevelopment Plan specifically
references the use of the redevelopment process to eliminate and mitigate all aspects of blight. The objectives
specifically address blighting conditions impeding the development of properties in the project area including the need
to eliminate visual blight due to incompatible uses, the proper utilization of properties in this project area, and
conformance with existing zoning. Staff has concluded that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Goals and
Objectives of the Redevelopment and Implementation Plan. Thus, it is recommended that the Planning Commission
adopt a resolution recommending to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista deny the proposed
amendment based on the findings contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution.
H:IHOMEICOMMDEVlHUNTERIPC CONCRETE.DOC
~
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-00-23
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DENY
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN / DESIGN MANUAL
ADDENDUM TO ALLOW A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS AN ALLOWED
USE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Otay Valley
Road Project Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to allow a
concrete batch plans as an allowed use was filed with the Community Development
Department of the City of Chula Vista by Superior Ready Mix Concrete; and
WHEREAS, , a Negative Declaration was prepared on April 26, 2000 per the
requirements of Section 15070 of State CEQA Guidelines: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on
said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with the purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, , the hearing was scheduled for May 17, 2000 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista certify the Negative
Declaration and deny Redevelopment Plan Amendment PCM-00-23 in accordance with the findings
contained in the attached resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chura Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Redevelopment
Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 17'h day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chair
ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary
3
.... _._----~ ...,_.,~.__._,._._-
PROJECT NAME:
Superior Ready Mix Concrete
PROJECT LOCATION:
1855 Maxwell Road and throughout the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Area, City ofChula Vista
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
Various
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Superior Ready Mix Concrete
CASE NO.:
PCM-00-23
DATE: May 2, 2000
A. Proiect Setting
The project is an amendment to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Implementation Plan /
Design Manual Addendum.
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Otay Valley Road Project Area
Implementation Plan / Design Manual Addendum to allow a concrete batch plant as an
allowed use. Presently such a use is prohibited.
C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans
The current zoning within the Implementation plan includes IP (Industrial Precise Plan), ILP
(Limited Industrial Precise Plan), S80 (the solid waste site), and A8 (Otay River). The site
is designated as Research and Limited Manufacturing, Public and Quasi-Public (solid waste
site), and Open Space (river) by the City's General Plan. The proposed project is in
compliance with the Zoning designation and the adopted General Plan, as it recommends
amending the zoning to allow this land use.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City ofChula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
Tequired. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
A:\llh\linda\is9R07 .neg
Page 1
4
I . Public Services Impact
Fire
The nearest fire station is located about 5 miles from the project site. The estimated
response time is less than seven (7) minutes. The response time complies with the
City Threshold Standards for fire and medical response time. The Fire Department
will review the building construction plans to ensure that the proposed construction
complies with applicable California Building Code regulations. However as this is
an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum, no construction is involved.
Police
The Police Department indicates that current levels of service and response time will
be provided to the proposed land uses.
2. Utilitvand Service Svstems
Soils
The applicant would be required to prepare an updated soils report as part of the
standard conditions of any proposed grading plan. The applicant would then comply
with the applicable recommendations as determined by the City engineer. However
since the project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum, no grading is
proposed.
Drainage
The project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum.
Sewer
Sewage flows and volumes are currently being adequately maintained. However
since the project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum no impact is
foreseeable.
Streetsffraffic
The Threshold Standards Policy requires that all signalized arterial segments operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service
(LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempt from this policy.
A: \llb\linda\is9807. neg
Page 2
!5
The proposed project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum to allow
concrete batch plants as an allowed use. An amendment to a planning document
would not impact this Threshold Policy.
3. Noise
The project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum. There is no noise
impact.
4. Aesthetics
The proposed project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum.
Air Ouality
The project is an amendment to the Design Manual Addendum. Ifthe amendment
is approved any future project will be required to be reviewed per federal, state, and
local standards.
E Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects.
NO MITIGATION IS BEING REQUIRED.
Name,
Title
Date
F. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Benjamin Guerrero, Community Development
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
A:\lIb\linda\is9807.neg
Page 3
b
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~-- rt--~
Brian Hunter
Planning & Environmental Manager
Date:
::",,-')OD
A: \llb\linda \is9807. neg
Page 4
7
._--'-'~"- .--..--,--....--.+-, -..- .._.~_._._---
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
Superior Ready Mix Concrete
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
1508 W. Mission Blvd.
Escondido, CA. 92029
(760)745-0556
4.
Name of Proposal:
Superior Ready Mix Concrete
5.
Date of Checklist:
March 13, 2000
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potential!
y
Significan
'Unless
Mitigated
Le!isthan
Significant
Impact
N.
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
181
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: The proposed project is an amendment to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum to allow concrete batch plants as
an allowed use. Presently only land uses pennitted under the [-L zone are permitted by
right. A concrete batch plant is prohibited by the [-L zone. However an amendment to
the Design Manual Addendum in and of itself does not have a significant effect on the
environment. Although staff is recommending denial of this amendment, even if it is
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
A: \lJb\]jnda \is9808ck. frm
Page 1
2
PotentiaJly
Significant
Impact
PotentiaJl
y
Significan
I Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
"
Impact
approved, any future concrete batch plant would still require environmental review, as
the project is the amendment to the Design Manual, a wording change in a planning
document, not the approval of a batch plant.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantiai growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
o
o
o
o
o
o
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
o
o
o
~
~
~
The project represents a revision to the City's existing Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area Implementation PlanlDesign Manual Addendum. The Design Manual
Adedendum does not increase or relocate residential densities nor does it propose to
amend existing CommunitylGeneral Plan Land Use or Zoning designations. It does
however propose to include a presently prohibited land use as pennitted.
Comments:
III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
A: \\lb\linda \is9808ck. frm
q
~
~
~
~
~
~
Page 2
Potentiall
Potentially y Less than
Significant Significan Significant :"Ijo
Impact t IJnless Impact Impact
Mitigated
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 Ii!
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The adoption of the revised Design Manual
Addendum will not directly expose people to geophysical hazards. Any proposed future
concrete batch plant project will require review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 Ii!
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 Ii!
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 Ii!
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 Ii!
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 Ii!
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 Ii!
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 Ii!
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 Ii!
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 Ii!
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 Ii!
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
The adoption ofthe revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development and
will therefore not affect water or groundwater resources. Future discretionary
governmental approval of site specific housing projects will require review in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable, the National
A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 3
fO
Potential!
Potentially
Significant
Impact
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
V. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 iii
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 iii
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 iii
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 iii
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 iii
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development and
will therefore not affect air quality. Future discretionary governmental approval of site
specific housing projects will . . accordance with the California
reqUire review 111
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
VI. TRANSPORT A TlON/CIRCULA TlON: Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 iii
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 iii
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 iii
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 iii
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 iii
bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 iii
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 iii
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 iii
A: \lIb\linda \is9R08ck. frm
Page 4
/I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potential!
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
LeSSlhan
Significant
Impact
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development,
increased or relocated densities or revise the Circulation Element of the City of Chula
Vista. The primary purpose of the revised Design Manual Addendum is to establish a
previously prohibited land use. Future discretionary governmental approval of site
specific projects will require review in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees )?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
o
o
I!I
o
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 Ii;!
0 0 0 Ii;!
0 0 0 Ii;!
Comments: No project specific plans are proposed and thus no impacts to biological resources have
been identified at this time. Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific
housing projects will require review in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal:
a) Confl ict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 Ii;!
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 I!I
inefficient manner?
c) [fthe site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 Ii;!
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 5
Il
-.------
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentiall
,
Significan
t Unless
Mitigated
'0
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development and
will therefore not affect energy and mineral resources. Future discretionary governmental
approval of site specific housing projects will require review in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments:
IX. HAZARDS: Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire bazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
o
o
I!I
o
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
Comments: No project specific plans are proposed and thus no impacts as a result of a potential risk
or accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances have been identified at this
time. Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific housing projects will
require review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
if applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), including any city adopted
Emergency Plan.
X. NOISE: Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 I!I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 I!I
Comments: The project will not expose people to noise levels as the project is the adoption of a
revised Design Manual Addendum. Future discretionary governmental approval of site
specific housing projects will require review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a needfor new or
A: \lIb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 6
I:>
Potentiall
Potentially , Less than
Significant Significan Significant No
Impact tllnless Impact Impact
Mitigated
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 III
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 III
c) Schools? 0 0 0 III
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 III
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 III
Comments:
The adoption ofthe revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in the need for new
or altered government services or facilities. The primary purpose of the revision is to
allow concrete batch plants to be considered for location within the Redevelopment Area.
Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific housing projects will require
review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if
applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
o
o
o
III
XII. THRESHOLDS: Will the proposal adversely
impact the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the established
Threshold Standards.
a) FirelEMS
o
o
o
III
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases.
The Threshold Standard does not apply to the adoption of the revised Design Manual
Addendum.
Comments:
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to
fire or emergency response times.
b) Police
o
o
o
III
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The
Threshold Standard does not apply to the adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum.
Comments:
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to Police
response times.
A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm
/'-(
Page 7
Potential!
Potentially y Less than
Significant Significan Significant No
Impact tlJnless Impact Impact
Mitigated
C) Traffic 0 0 0 t!!
The Threshold Standards require that all signalized arterial segments operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may
occur during the peak two hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of 1-805
which do not meet the above standard are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS.
No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The
Threshold Standard does not apply to this project.
Comments:
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to traffic.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
t!!
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/] ,000 population. This standard
does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments:
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to parks
and recreation.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
t!!
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. This standard does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments:
The adoption of the Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to drainage.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
t!!
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments:
The adoption ofthe Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to sewer.
g) Water
o
o
o
t!!
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities
are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The Threshold Standard does not apply to the
proposed project.
A: \llb\linda\is9808ck. frm
/5
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potential!
y
Significan
tUnless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Comments:
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to water.
XIII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would
the proposal result in a needfor new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
Comments: The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum will not result in impacts to
utilities and service systems.
XIV AESTHETICS: Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
Comments: The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development and
will therefore not result in specific physical changes to the environment. Future
discretionary governmental approval of site specific projects will require review in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 9
{0
__.._.___ ...._._n____.._.____.__.______.___...--.._________...._.. .__.. _
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project does not propose to grade or disturb fonnations that may contain potential
cultural resources. The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not
propose development and will therefore not result in specific physical changes to the
environment. Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific housing projects
will require review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and if applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
XVI PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project does not propose to grade or disturb formations that may contain potential
cultural resources. The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not
propose development and will therefore not result in specific physical changes to the
environment. Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific housing projects
will require review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and if applicable the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A).
XV CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal.
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
XVII RECREATION: Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Potential!
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
y
Significan
tUnless
Mitigated
No
Impact
o
o
181
o
o
o
o
181
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
o
181
o
o
181
o
o
o
o
181
A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 10
/7
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
c) I nterfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
Comments:
Potential!
Potentially , Less than
Significant Significan Significant N.
Impact tUnles! Impact Impact
Mitigated
0 0 0 II
0 0 0 II
The adoption of the revised Design Manual Addendum does not propose development and
will therefore not result in specific physical changes to the environment. Future
discretionary governmental approval of site specific housing projects will require review
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EJR is
needed, this section should be completed
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments:
o
o
o
II
As previously discussed in Section VII, Biological Resources and Section XV, Cultural
and Paleontological Resources, the project is the adoption of a revised Design Manual
Addendum and will not result in any physical changes to the environment. Therefore, it
will not degrade the quality of the environment and will not substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project will not cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels and will not threaten to eliminate or
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
community. Also, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. The adoption of the revised Design Manual
Addendum does not propose development and will therefore not result in specific
physical impacts to the environment.
jg
o
II
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The Design Manual Addendum is a land use planning document that does not create or
recommend action programs that would conflict with long-tenn city adopted environmental goals and
o
o
A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 11
"------.------..'.""'-..---.-.-.-----.-.
Potential!
y
Significan
tUnless
Mitigated
objectives. There are no identified conflicts with environmental plans or policies adopted by other
agencies as well.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
;>Jo
Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a 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.)
o
o
o
III
Comments:
The revised Design Manual Addendum is a policy document that does not create or
recommend action programs that would contain "Cumulative considerable" effects but
rather implements community adopted goals and objectives.
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
III
Comments: No evidence has been provided in the initial study that shows that the adoption of the
revised Design Manual Addendum will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. No project specific plans are proposed and thus no
impacts as a result of a potential risk or accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances have been identified at this time as stated in Sections IX Hazards and X Noise.
Future discretionary governmental approval of site specific projects will require review
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and if applicable
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) including any city adopted Emergency
Plan.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
There are no Mitigation Measures
XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning
D Transportation/Circulation
D Public Services
A: \llb\linda \is9808ck. fnn
,q
Page 12
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards (asbestos potent.) D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 181
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but D
at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I 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 all potentially 0
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
~ .:..;) -=- ~
May I, 2000
A: \llb\] inda \is9R08ck. frm
2..0
Page 13
Brian Hunter
Planning and Environmental Manager
City ofChuia Vista
Date
A: \lJb\linda \is9808ck. frm
Page 14
2.(
'----~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DENYING AN
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT
AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM TO ALLOW A
CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS AN ALLOWED USE
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general
description is the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Site"): and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1999 a duly verified application for an amendment to the Otay
Valley Road Project Area Implementation Plan I Design Manual Addendum (PCM-00-23) was filed
with the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department by Superior Ready Mix Concrete
(Applicant): and
WHEREAS, applicant requests permission to construct a concrete batch plant which
presently is not allowed by the existing Implementation Plan I Design Manual Addendum thereby
necessitating a request for amendment to said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider said
application on May 17, 2000, and after considering all evidence and testimony presented
recommended by a vote of _ that the Redevelopment Agency deny the Implementation Plan
Amendment: and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on , 2000 to receive the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby Certify the Negative Declaration and Deny the Implementation Plan Amendment based
on the following findings;
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on May 17, 2000 and the minutes and resolution resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Manager prepared an Initial Study, and
determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration was prepared: and,
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and,
2.2
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgement of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts
the Negative Declaration.
1. A concrete batch plant would be a continuation of the underdevelopment of this
property when viewed in the larger framework of the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment and Implementation Plans which envision an industrial park
development.
2. A concrete batch plant may have a negative economic effect on the surrounding
properties by sending the message that the comprehensive vision of the
Redevelopment Plan is still premature.
3. The concrete batch plant is a prohibited use per the Zoning Ordinance.
4. A concrete batch plant generally exhibits a simple utilitarian design that does not
concern itself with architecture or urban design.
5. It is the intent of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment plan, and its Implementation
Plan and Design Manual Addendum to guide and promote the development of well-
designed, well-ordered, and economically sound industrial parks and land uses. The
land uses envisioned by the plan include light manufacturing facilities, warehouses,
distribution centers, research institutions, and product-development plants. As a
general rule, the said plans and addendum contemplate and encourage the
establishment of indoor or enclosed operations. A concrete batch plant would not
meet this criteria.
PRESENTED BY
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
John M. Kaheny
Agency Attorney
2~
EXHIBIT ..
OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
(fJ
.
'..~~ jZ~~~? j '\ .~~\~\ ~o~
'. ._~~ / \\" ~?-~."'.:':'-':: ~'J../' '....---- ________". ___----'. \, \
93iiW~~ \);~c:S ~Ii> I / ,/ \ \~.. 1"1, '''y \",1'\"1.
~~~"""c",\ . \~~~c","<~.~~o'\-.~~.,.:~,~~, \\
""'!(;? ~~~~.. .~"'~ ~\ '. \,1
~ "', -rr:-;-rr.-~., I'. .'
. '\~-S~=. 1_ I'.
" \\~~~. \ \~I
''eP~I~\~..~~.:....\. -~;-- . \'~ ~ ....-',1.
~'I, ..,,';!!!;!!!IJJL.:::o: \' \\ ~...---
~'-------~~ '",.-/~ '\,
E"2cc~__~=!~-=----J\~~' I ~
WfJ7j;~i ,~t~~, \ /~
\)~, filft{-~@.~..~ l.~~~tF ~" ~-
= \~_- ,~~! 4!,scsfjfi-
~~~~ Sj~="95
- ?"..,,'ffj~~~j ff~'"' - ~
~ =-~~Y-=~ <i ~"' ~
::::::;::~'~~-:;..-::::==.~ ~,
~::'~~~~':;:'~'~ \ I" I.
,....-------'_~~r~~ ,',...-----
~~~~
~:
,~2:= '~i@,,~, "~~
~~:=:- =-~~Jf2: ~~~
~I~. j.~I.E:.'\ ~~~" -
>, \<<Y&;~ i~~~~?~
;~ ~aI;_~ -~:~~;~;;!
, ~"-V ~_ ." ~ _-_C~C_."~_
=y ~" ' " .::::J~)(i;",.....,:, 't;:".;!.>::.@.......,';;'d.L
_q E:::::;:;:', ~~ JE' ; i "~ ~~
~ ......::~~" %= ~~,~\ r7T';-,-~
,,-.--:' , ~.~c:: I ~. ~
"~ ~.,\'~~~,ii ~?:~~~~ OtayVal1.yRoad
~ ~:::', ' ',~ i :' , ,; \-------;;-----=--:.~-=--
; 2.c'.. 'J' .,------- _~j----\~
c-t ~ '2'~ ,I ------:~~_ ( , /'
% .~~:"r-= ; ,. n : ':: /1/
CI ,~~~ . I Ii -~:--- ~. ----'./"- / I
.... ~ . : '. i: r--r--~ . /;---,/
-' ~~~j/ j .) ,
_ ~ -~o.----.....--- -
-~
,
'.
~
.:;-
~
"
---
/
?:-~._~
\-.t
------=:l~
! IL
~~
~I
,I \'\
) \\
,
,
L____------------:
,
.
..~~
I ~
---.
,--
f~
----------------------
'T-~//
\~~
\~..~
\:::~.~
~~
~.
o
1COO
=
:mJ''''
2'--{