The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/05/24 (8) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date 5/24/95 ITEM TITLE: GPA-95-04--Consideration of a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing on property located north of "L" Street, between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Trolley tracks -- City initiated. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Find that the proposed General Plan Amendment will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-20 based on information contained in the Initial Study for the project proposal and findings within the Negative Declaration. 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft Resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for approximately 4 acres located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 5 and "L" Street from Open space to Research and Limited Manufacturing. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 8, 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend the adoption of Negative Declaration IS-95-20 (please see attachment 4 for minutes). DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics This triangular-shaped property contains approximately 4 level acres divided into two lots, one of which is surplus right-of-way owned by the City. The site has 255 feet of frontage on the north side of "L" Street and is bounded on the east by the San Diego Trolley tracks and on the west by the Interstate 5 Freeway. A traffic signal exists at the northerly terminus of Industrial Boulevard at "L" Street which aligns with the entrance to the subject property. 2. Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned I-L-P (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan Modifying District) and is presently vacant. The Modifying District was added to control access, landscaping and signage Page 2, Item 2 Meeting Date 5/24/95 at this location, which is identified as a City "gateway" in the General Plan. A paved Park and Ride lot occupies the City-owned parcel but is no longer in use. The zoning and land use on surrounding parcels is as follows: North: Not applicable South: I-L-P; improved with a truck rental facility East: R-2 and R-3; improved with duplexes and apartments, east of the San Diego Trolley tracks West: Unzoned; improved with the Interstate 5 Freeway 3. Project Description The project consists of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram for property currently designated Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing to conform to the existing industrial zoning on the property. 4. Analysis The subject property was rezoned from Unzoned, R-2 and R-3 to its present industrial zoning (I - L- P) in 1975. In 1989, the General Plan was updated and the property was not assigned an appropriate land use designation to conform with its existing zoning. Recently, it has come to the attention of the City and the owner of the parcel that the property was not properly designated. In an effort to bring the General Plan Land Use Diagram and present zoning into consistency, Staff is recommending the proposed amendment. The Land Use Diagram indicates the subject property pictorially as Open Space, however, this property was inadvertently depicted in the Open Space color instead of a land use designation consistent with the underlying zoning. This may have occurred due to the narrow shape of the property. The proposed General Plan Amendment is considered a clean-up amendment in light of the long-standing zoning on the property. A "conceptual" master plan for the beautification of the MTDB right-of-way through Chula Vista was approved by the City Council in 1988. The conceptual master plan identifies landscaping/park opportunities along the trolley right-of-way, including the subject property, however, the City Council gave no specific authorization for such park use nor is it identified in the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan as a future park. While the City Council heard a presentation of the entire beautification project, only City participation at "E" and "H" Streets through the approval of a Capital Improvement Project has been authorized. In review of the physical characteristics of the property, alternative land use designations were studied, however, these proved inappropriate due to site limitations. The proposed Research and Page 3, Item 2 Meeting Date 5/24/95 Limited Manufacturing General Plan designation, along with the existing I-L-P zoning, permits primarily lower impact industrial uses with relatively low traffic volumes. Although the development potential of the property is limited, the presence of the "P" modifier will insure that a precise plan is filed to allow the City to evaluate any development proposed for the property relative to traffic circulation, building architecture, landscaping and signage to insure compatibility with adjacent properties. 5. Conclusion The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study (IS-95-20) of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments therein, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this amendment would not result in significant environmental impacts and has issued a Draft Negative Declaration. Based an the above analysis, Staff concludes that the existing industrial zoning on the property and the proposed corresponding General Plan designation would provide General Plan/Zoning consistency and would continue to permit land uses appropriate to the limitations of the site. The existing Precise Plan Modifier would insure that any proposed future development of the property is cognizant of these limitations. Attachments 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft City Council Resolution 3. Exhibits: Locator, General Plan map 4. RCC minutes 5. Environmental Documents with Disclosure Statement (m:\home\planning\GPA95-04.pau) RESOLUTION NO. GPA-95-04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 5 AND "L" STREET FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment was initiated by the staff of the City Planning Department to correct a mapping error on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; and WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for approximately 4 acres located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 5 and "L" Street be changed from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 24, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the existing I-L-P zoning on the property, the limitations of the site to accommodate other zones/uses and the presence of the existing "P" Precise Plan Modifier with which to evaluate any proposed development relative to traffic circulation, building architecture, landscaping and signage to insure compatibility with adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than four (4) times this calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends the adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-95-20; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-20. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram for approximately 4 acres located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 5 and "L" Street in accordance with the attached City Council resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property in question and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of May, 1995, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman Attest: Nancy Ripley, Secretary DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 5 AND "L" STREET FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment was initiated by the staff of the City Planning Department to correct a mapping error on the General Plan Land Use Diagram; and WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for approximately four acres located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 5 and "L" Street be changed from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely ,1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the existing I-L-P zoning on the property, the limitations of the site to accommodate other zones/uses and the presence of the existing "P" Precise Plan Modifier with which to evaluate any proposed development relative to traffic circulation, building architecture, landscaping and signage to insure compatibility with adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than four (4) times this calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends the adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-95-20; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-20. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City Council, the Council finds that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram designating the property "Research and Limited Manufacturing" . Presented by Approved as to fonn by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Bruce M. Boogard City Attorney ,( r , ~)i i I(L: I LU Ll.J.J I I! I L...L...U.J . - I- '.J S"il'<E;.f:T , Dl\ - -...-- PARK . :',1 f--- ---j.-- - -- 1= ..:.. _ _ _ _'....__.,-1 tD - ~\ - ~ , - , f--o- - - -- ~ ~ ..... - ~ -i- f- - .- - - - t - .- - z - - I ~ - - ~ EY - .. - w ?J ..J - - - a:: - - .... - \ - !: > r-- Z .- 0 ~ z a:: I-- I '" .. I~ - 1-- I - .. I - a: ..J ...J I '" >-- 0 0 " u~ ...J ~ >-- 0 0 u ~ , - - f-- I I - 'jo(' ~P.E;~ J - PROJECT - - ~,~ - -11.-.. -- , _. LOCATION - .- -- :-. -- > ~ . - - t - -<- z - - t-- 0 I- - VI - - f--- - e- - --- '" 1- ~- . .. z -. -n-I~ - ~- h~ .....~ \- ::!! -- I - 5'ERRA WAY a: -- , ~ -t-I ,- 1 I~ ~ - ~ - , - ~ I , Ia: - - - "-- -- /, - - .-'----.. /' - , I 1 - - - -- - >- - -. - >-- - ~ - - - - - / I I - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - ,[; <::;r~e:1 - - Jlgl y t ----- 1:=' CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~UT Ci1y of Chule Vista GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT C) ~'(,Jjg Northeast corner of Interstate 5 Request: To Amend General Plan from Open Space to and 'L' Street Research and Limited Manufacturing. SCALE, FilE NUMBER, NORTH 400' GPA-95-04 ~Ui)(Q] i..AND USE ..SIDENTIAI. L=:J I.ow c:J 1.:..:"::::::1 F))).j _ HIOh 18-27 ~... ....... 8-11 =um- 11-18 CC>OAERCIAL ~ ..,,, ~""'~II/'. _ V"" "2;;;J P'l'of..-lonel .. ~tr.tnotI ....."""- ~ AeMUctll LMIIted ~ Manutacturlng ,""K <>-, ~ 1IIII!I!IIIIi- , ~-- CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~~, Ci1y of Chula Vista GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT C) ~'(,Jle~, Northeast corner of Interstate 5 Request: To Amend General Plan from Open Space to and 'L' Street Research and Limited Manufacturing. SCALE, FILE NUMBERo NORTH 400' GPA-95-04 negative declaration PROJECT NAl\fE: Northeast Corner of Interstate 5 and 'L' St. General Plan Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Interstate 5 and 'L' Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-250-18 & 20; 571-170-18 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Department CASE NO: I~-95-20 DATE: April 21, 1995 A. Proiect Setting The project site. consisting of two parcels totalling :1:4.0 acres, contains a .5 acre Park & Ride lot. The remaining portion of both parcels is vacant. Surrounding land uses include San Diego Trolley tracks and multiple family dwellings to the east, 1-5 to the west, a truck rental yard to the south and a vacant site to the north (zoned ILP). Mature California Pepper trees exist on a portion of the site. There are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. The average graded slope of the site is 2 %. In 1975. the City Council approved the placement of the I-L-P (Limited Industrial subject to Precise Plan modifier) zone on this site. However, this site, which previously consisted of excess freeway right-of-way property, did not have a General Plan land use designation applied to it. As a result of inquiries by the current property owner, the City staff realized that a General Plan designation .was needed to demonstrate compliance with underlying zonmg. B. Proiect DescriDtion The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan to designate a 4.0 acre site as Research and Limited Manufacturing. The amendment will enable possible future development of the site as an unspecifie4 industrial land use. An industrial land use could result in impacts to such areas as traffic, noise, schools, glare, etc. However, environmental analysis will be required when such a proposal is submitted to the City. Given the size, location and configuration of the site, its development potential appears to be limited. As a result, the environmental analysis for a specific use on the project site is expected to find that potential environmental impacts are less than significant. Future discretionary actions necessary for development of the site include approval of a Precise Plan. ~{ft- -f- ~~~ ,~~~ c:hul. vllt. p18nnlng clep.rtment 01Y OF envlronment.1 NYIe. ..dlon. OiULA VISTA City of C. Comvatibility with Zoning and Plans The project involves an amendment to the General Plan to allow for future development of a site which is currently designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, however, the site is zoned ILP. The proposed General Plan designation of the site to Research and Limited Manufacturing will be consistent with nearby industrial land uses, the San Diego Trolley line, and the ILP zone. A required Precise Plan will ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding uses. D. Comvatibility with Zoning and Plans The project involves an amendment to the General Plan to allow for future development of a site which is currently not designated in the General Plan text, but is designated as Open Space on the General Plan land use diagram and zoned ILP. The proposed General Plan designation of the site to Research and Limited Manufacturing will be consistent with surrounding industrial land uses and the ILP zone. A Precise Plan as required in the ILP zone will ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding uses. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the 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 required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following is a discussion of impacts which have been determined to be less than significant: Land Use The nearest residential development exists over 100 ft. from the project site, on the east side of the San Diego Trolley right-of-way. This residential development, consisting of multiple family dwellings fronting on Colorado Street, is not expected to be adversely impacted by the any development proposal anticipated for the subject site, which could result through subsequent proposals. However, as stated previously, any subsequent development proposal will require separate environmental analysis. A "conceptual" master plan for beautification of the MTDB right-of-way was approved by the City Council in 1988, which included the subject site. The property, both the privately- owned and City-owned parcels, are designated for use as a park on the "conceptual" master plan. The City Council authorized participation in implementation of landscaping at "E" and "H" Streets, however, no authorization or approval has occurred for the subject site or other areas. In addition, the site does not appear in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan as a proposed park. The General Plan Amendment to designate the site Research and Limited Manufacturing will result in consistency with the existing ILP zone and current development potential and not preclude the City's ability to require enhanced project landscaping, consistent with the MTDB right-of-way landscaping program, if and when future development is proposed. This would also be consistent with Precise Plan Guidelines WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020,91Ref. ]02] .93,1022.93) Page 2 adverse effect on the quality of the natural environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or eliminate a plant or animal community. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The proposed General Plan amendment will allow for the possible future development of a 4.0 acre area (consisting of two parcels) for an industrial use. Environmental review will be required when such a proposal is submitted to the City. Given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, the environmental analysis of a specific use is expected to determine that impacts are less than significant. In addition, development of the parcel will also be subject to precise plan review. Future review of a specific proposal will ensure compliance with long-term goals. 3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The development of the proposed site could have an incremental effect on the surrounding uses. Environmental review will be required when such a proposal is submitted to the City and impacts will be determined and mitigated. School impacts of the proposed amendment, as discussed in section D of this document, will be mitigated prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that impacts are less than significant. This will ensure that the proposed development on the site will not have any effects which are cumulatively considerable. 4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project is in compliance with threshold standards for fire, police, and other public services as discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment to allow for an industrial use on the project site will not cause significant environmental impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly. F. Consultation I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9)'Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 4 Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Duane Bazzel, Planning Ed Batchelder, Planning Paul Manganelli, Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Paul Manganelli 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code MTDB Right-of-Way Conceptual Master Plan (1988) 3. Initial Studv . 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 Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. '>d' ~h../ ~0 ~ ~f'i;{( V/cY/ /7S-' ENVIRONM NT AL R IEW CO RDI TOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/93) WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020,93:Ref. ]021.93.1022,93) Page 5 APPENDIX III CITY DATA SHEET PLANJ'.'lNG DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: ILP North South East West ILP ILP R3 IP Does the project conform to the current zoning? Yes II. General Plan land use designation on site: Not designated North Industrial/Research & Limited Manufacturing South Industrial/Research & Limited Manufacturing East Medium-High Residential West Industrial/Research & Limited Manufacturing Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? No. however the proposed general plan amendment will "clean up" the diagram by designating a site which is not designated in the General Plan text. Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? The site is designated on the diagram as open space. howeyer it is zoned ILP and has not been approved for a park or open space preserve. as it is located in a highly industrial area of the City. Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? The site is located along a gateway corridor to the City. (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). When a proiect proposal is submitted. enhanced proiect landscaping will be required to ensure that the aesthetic Quality of the gateway corridor into the City is maintained. III. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: N/ A School Capacity Enrollment Units Proposed Generating Factors Students Generated From Proiect Elementary Junior High Senior High .30 .29 .10 IV. Remarks: 'T;(i~(+ 10 ~~) Director of Planning or Representative Date If/oV/op # ~ Case No. IS-95-20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista Planning Department 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Nnmher of Proponent: same as above 4. Name of Proposal: Northeast Corner of Interstate 5 and "L" Street, General Plan Amendment 5. Date of Checklist: April 21. 1995 wpe F \HOMEIPLANNI!\JGISTORED\1718.94 Page 1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 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 farmlands, 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 project involves an amendment to the General Plan to allow for future development of a site which is currently not designated in the General Plan text, but is designated as Open Space on the General Plan land use diagram and zoned ILP. The proposed General Plan designation of the site to Research and Limited Manufacturing will be consistent with surrounding industrial land uses and the ILP zone. A Precise Plan as required in the ILP zone will ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding uses. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: There are no housing and population impacts which will be generated by the project at this time. Given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, population and housing impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? Polrntiall~' Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o Potentiall)' Significant lInles~ Mitigated o o o o o o o o o o Less than Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o No Impact 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 WPC F \IIOME\PLANSlt-:G\STORED\171 8,94 Page 2 d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Potentially Signilicant Impact o o Potentially Significant Unleu Mitigated o o Leu than Significant Im~ct o o No Impul 181 181 f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 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 bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: No geophysical changes are proposed at this time, When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, geophysical impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 WPC F\HOME\PLANNING\STOREDl1718 94 Page 3 currently applied to the project site through the ILP zomng, which calls for enhanced landscaping as a "gateway" to the City. Schools As noted with the project description, amendment of the site's General Plan designation to Research and Limited Manufacturing from its presently non-designation condition is necessary as a "clean-up" amendment to allow use of the site pursuant to its ILP zoning classification established in 1975. No development proposal is being made at this time. Both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District have expressed a necessity to fully mitigate any impacts associated with future student generation as may be tied to possible future industrial development on the subject site. Absent a development proposal, enrollment impacts which may generate from future development on the site cannot be specifically determined at this time. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, school enrollment impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be individually insignificant. From the standpoint of cumulative impacts, Harborside Elementary School, Chula Vista Junior High School and Chula Vista High School, within whose attendance areas the subject site lies, are presently operating above capacity. Therefore, any additional enrollment impact, no matter how individually insignificant, is seen as adding to already overcrowded conditions, and the school districts are requesting provision for full mitigation of any potential future enrollment impact beyond that which would be mitigated through payment of State-mandated building permit fees. At present, the City and both school districts, in conjunction with Source Point (the non-profit arm of the San Diego Association of Govermnents), are working on a joint study to identify and quantify the various sources of enrollment increase and their impacts, and to develop equitable methods for mitigating these impacts. As a result, future development on the project site shall be required to fully mitigate any associated impacts to local schools to the satisfaction of the school districts, as determined in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned study and related mitigation program(s), or with whatever mitigation program(s) is in effect at the time of building permit issuance. E. Mandatorv Findings of Significance 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The Initial Study indicated that there are no endangered species or sensitive biological resources on the project site, which is located in a developed area of the City and surrounded by industrial uses, a freeway and trolley tracks. The General Plan Amendment to allow for an industrial use on the site will not have a significant WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 3 Potentially Signilkant Impact Potentially Significant Un]eu Mitigated Leu than Signilicant Impact No Impact Comments: There are no water impacts at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, water impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: There are no air quality impacts at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, air quality impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) I nsufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 WPC F.\HOME\PLANNI!,-'G\STORED\ 1718. 94 Page 4 Potential!, Significanl Impacl Poteotian)" Significant Unleu Mitigated No Impacl Leu than Significant Impact Comments: There are no transportation impacts at this time. When a development proposal is submitted. an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, transportation impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. 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 o 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 Comments: The general plan amendment to allow for an industrial use on the site will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the natural environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or eliminate a plant or animal community, as there are no such species or habitat which have been identified on the project site, which is in a highly developed area of the City. There are mature pepper trees on a portion of the site, but there will be no impacts to these trees at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed, to ensure impacts to these trees are addressed. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) I f the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: There are no energy and resource impacts generated by the proposed amendment to the General Plan at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: WPC F\HOME\PLAJ\.'1\//'.:G\STORED\1718 94 Page 5 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? Potentially Potentially Significant lAossthan Significant Unlesl Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: There are no hazardous impacts generated by the proposed general plan amendment. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposed general plan amendment will not generate noise, but will allow for development on the site. When a specific project is proposed, noise levels and impacts will need to be determined. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed and noise impacts will be mitigated, if necessary, to ensure that impacts are less than significant. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ~ b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 ~ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 WPC F\HOME\PLA?\.'NING\STORED\1718.94 Page 6 Potentially Significant Impact POlentially Significant Unlen Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: There are no public service impacts at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed and impacts will be addressed, to ensure that impacts are less than significant. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? o o o 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirefEMS 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 City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated with a 3 minute response time The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The fire department has stated that the general plan amendment will not impact fire department services. b) Police 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. I 0% 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The reporting district of which the project site is located has a reponse time of 4 min, 40 sec. for priority I and 6min., 36sec. for priority 2. These reponse times are within the threshold standard; the project will not impact these response times. The crime prevention unit did not indicate any concerns about the proposed general plan amemdment. When a development proposal is submitted to the City, the crime prevention unit will respond with crime prevention recommendations. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must 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 at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718 94 Page 7 Pottntially Significant Impact Pottntially Signilicant linltn Mitigatt'd un Ihan Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The proposed general plan amendment will not generate any traffic. When a specific. project is proposed, it is estimated that the number of the ADT to be generated by the proposal is expected to be between 200 ADT and 315 ADT. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis of traffic impacts will be completed, to ensure that impacts are less than significant.The volumes will not exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) "C" design ADT level. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, General Plan Element and other pertinent traffic studies. d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres!] ,000 population. Comments: Park & recreation threshold levels to not apply to this project e) Drainage 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 PJan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: On-site facilities consist of surface flow and earthen channel flow northward to drainage facilities south of "J" Street. These are adequate to serve the site, however when developed, additional on-site collection and conveyance facilities may be required to convey runoff to drainage facilities south of "J" Street. Off-site facilities consist of a double 6' x 5' RCB south of "J" Street which flows westward under Interstate %. These are adequate facilities to serve the project. When a development proposal is submitted to the City, an environmental analysis will be completed to ensure that impacts are less than significant. f) Sewer 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Existing sewer lines consist of a 15" VCP sewer Jine that flows northward along the easterly portion of the site to a IS" VCP in "K" Street. The 15" VCP in "K" Street discharges to a 15" VCP in Colorado Avenue that flows northward to "J" Street. These facilities are adequate to serve the project. When a development proposal is submitted to the City, an environmental analysis will be completed to ensure that impacts are less than significant. g) Water 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. Page 8 WPC F \HOME\PLA.!'>NING\STORED\I 718 94 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unleu Mitigated u~, than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: Water impacts cannot be determined at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, water impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. When a development is proposed, NPDES requirements will need to be evaluated for stormwater discharge impacts to water. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Utility and service system impacts cannot be determined at this time. When a development proposal is submitted, an environmental analysis will be completed. However, given the size, location and configuration of the site, and its related limited future development potential, impacts which may be tied to future development on the site are projected to be less than significant. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 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 0 0 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 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) Result in an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Aesthetic impacts cannot be determined at this time. When a development proposal is submitted a precise plan and environmental review will be required, which will address aesthetics and the issue of additional spill light, to ensure that impacts are less than significant. WPC F\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\ 1718. 94 Page 9 Pot~nlilllly Pot~nliaU}' Significant L~u than Significant Unl~l~ Significant No Impact Mitigat~d Impact Impact XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There have not been any cultural resources identified on the project site, which could be impacted by this proposal. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There have not been any paleontological resources identified on the site, which could be impacted by this proposal. o o o 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or 0 0 0 181 programs? Comments: A "conceptual" master plan for beautification of the MTDB right-of-way was approved by the City Council in 1988, which included the subject site. The property, both the privately-owned and City-owned parcels, are designated for use as a park on the Project "Conceptual" Master Plan. No authorization by the City Council for the parcel's use for park purposes has ever occurred nor does it appear on the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. While the City Council heard a presentation of the beautification project in 1988, only City participation at "E" and nH" Streets was authorized. The General Plan Amendment to designation the site Research and Limited Manufacturing will allow consistency will the ILP zone and development of a site, which has not been authorized for use as a Park and is not designated as such in Park & Recreation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the project will not interfere with any parks or recreation plan or program. WPC F \HOME\PLANNI~G\STORED\ 1718, 94 Page 10 Potentiall}' Potentially Significant lAss than SignifieRnt lInless SignifieRnt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 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: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 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.) Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration. Page II WPC F\HOME"PLA/','NING\STORED\17I8.94 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 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 D Cultural Resources D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and ~ a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D 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 NEGATIVE 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 at least D one effect: I) 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. >8 ~.d fir LJ ~) Enviro mental R iew Coo dinator City of Chula Vista if IciV /9$ Date' . WPC F \HOJ\.IE\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94 Page 12 YS-fo rB ROUTING FORM DATE: . /P, Apr~l If, 1995 f,r_,- ~ ,\ \ Ff2cM: :re-: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll) community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other "f7y: ~ Barbara Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-20/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment (City Initiated) to change the land use designation from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing of a 3.8 acre parcel. Currently one half of the parcel is used as a parking lot and the remaining half is vacant. Location: Northeast corner Interstate 5 and 'L' street extending northerly approximately 550 feet north of 'K' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by April 19. 1995 . Comments: Ys-~(2, Case No. IS-QS -;20 IJ\'TERDEPARTMENTAL COMMEJ\'T SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Drainace A. Is the project site within a flood plain? .!:!D If so, state which FEMA FIoodway Frequency Boundary. ~/A. I B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? S{)I!-Fk~ H NN AND ~6.I C.I-t6.NJJ~1 f=Lr>W tJ,.,e..-r1-fw,," h '1Z) bf2Af#J.MrE. h4CJU"fJES GoU-n-f ..,l=' ":fir ~~El C. Me they adequate to serve the project? YEG_ u-"W~€R-, 1V'fEN !>EV~J.A?F"'1 A-I;1p,- If not, please explain briefly. 1J6A.. TrONA'- OtJ-S fIE. ~(I ~r_ndoJ hJ.b , r.I'J../VF- V~{GE t="ACf/- ,T(~~ MAY BE- R u D Wh. h I . d d .. f .. f (foIA$tE; tJ.-'ilir.t~ . at IS t e ocanon an escnptlOn 0 eXlstlllg 0 -Site ar age rac nes. ]y.,,/Jlh.E Co I X 5 I !2L.fl:, S:xn7f Df:=' \~'f 9rP~J=r WIC# Fl~1AI5 wr~ [hi '(;FJ2 'u.rrr::~rn""TE.- 5 E. Me they adequate to serve the project? YF<:;. If not, please explain briefly. /oJ1A , II. Transportation A. B. r'l I ~ , ,.></ C. . , " " What roads provide primary access to the project? "L" Sn::EE.T What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? _BETWEFJJ 2.ft)A-vr hJ!) 3'5 A-DI What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary access roads before and after project completion? Street Name .' (. It <;rr-eF"~ Before I~<:no After I b .:2f<5 , Do any of these volumes ,exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) .cn design ADT volume? If yes, please specify. ND. WPCoF''HOME\Pl.ANNING\STOREIN022.93 (Rd, 1021.93) (Ref, IO:W,93) Page 2 YS -biB Case No..IS-"r5-.,2D If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. /-.J/A. ; . D. Axe the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? YES. If not, please explain briefly. /J fA . , E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? ND. If so, identify: Location f./.bA.. Cumulative 'L.O.S. N M,. , F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TlA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance. Yes x: No The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of the proposed project? Yes)( No If yes, please describe. N fA , H. Is the project consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transponation Phasing Plan, General Plan Traffic Element, and all other peninent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed project. Yt:5. 1. J. Is a traffic study required? Is there any dedication required? N D. If so, please specify. f.)hA.. Yes ><. No WPCP,'HOME\PLANNlNG>STOREIN02.2.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) Page 3 YS-(;ff3 Case No. rS-Cf5 -~D K. Is there any street widening required? '" 0 . If so, please specify. N, IA . L. Are there any other street improvements required? Yr;..c:;. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. rNSiAL..LA,rDN 6f= CC$..&, ~V"7/'El!., 5;rl:>FOw4f v, A<1"D ]')I0VEW AY IMP/4)VE- M~~) W?h:=~! DEV~J./)'PEb) At-LYJ.t; IfL 'f S"r7l.FPr M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future build out General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief explanation). ~}(I5111-J(; Ci>Nl::>I-r/oNS ~ YES. FuTV2F ,:q J{tJyo" ,.,- ~~E/<AL 'Ff..A.rJ r,.,N1HT7N-.1c; =;> Y'E~. , m. Soils A. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? (.IN IC.JJ ow..r . B. If yes, specify these conditions. kl fA . . C. Is a Soils Report necessary? YES. Wi+E.N SPECIFIc- 7:>EVEl-C>'PMENr ( S ~C:SE!:> . AND ~ 70 ""T">>E 1GSU'.Nc.E. OF G,c?At:>I"'G HJb/o1l.. IV. Land Form gUIl.blN(; PE/!Jlfrrs ' A. What is the average(;~slope of the site? 2 % (8(Ct...U1>E:<. ~rl:>E <:;or ,...pEe;;,. B. What is the maximum~lope of the site? 50% (srt:>E 5t.OPF-<=:;) V. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? NO. VI. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid UN Kr-lDWAf . IJJS( IPf=/G IEN"'- I^,F~""'ION P'/i!n.II~r:, . Liquid Qt.A.25 ~ur,NS POi:.. 'DA.Y(~7, lEPus). d1J ) What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? t!(..1r,lJr:;1I VCP ~~~ LtN~ ~ ~U?W<; NokrUw~h .At,..,.,f,~ 77fE. E:A~J:>I v kli7i PC>t<::rlcN DF""11-IF:. '<;17C. 7T) A 15"j/C'P IN "Kit ~FFr. mE /5IfVc;.P{N , "K"!; rSCI-/, I "vcp N u>ws (;>1<:r7-f W. I<b 7?> 'J" 577Z.E rr-. Are they equate to serve tfie proposed project? (If no, please explain) YE:S. WPC,F,IIiOMIN'I.ANNINGlSTORErN022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (lid. 1020.93) Page 4 Y5-0(8 Case No. rs- <=15 -~ Vll. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Storrnwater ReQuirements Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Storrnwater Permit? No. Hr>wevE~,' NPDFC, REqurREMeN75 WILL.. NFF~ 77:> 'BE. IZE-EVAu 14-T""F"_~ WHt:'N s'PUl F Ie. ])E.~I r-.Pfo/fa.lr t.5 F't<c:fCJSEt If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES permit is required. foLIA. . Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? Yes >< No Additional comments AlA. , Vll. Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. IV r>N E- . -II/tis / Date WPCJ','HOMElP!J.NNlNG'SI"OREI>\l02HI (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) PageS ...:HULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT _ r'----- R. PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS rP..1\ '( ,! . f-'" '._ DATE: /))~ 8 ( /990 TO: 8M 6~t:L K ud / Ell i/ I ~ N I Frl en fa / VIA'ili6f..!.apt - iU I Y-h e r S I J-rl j/. 'ZJ I i/. FROM: /J}J J)IO~~Jo I 5~f8 PROJECT: f s - 9s -Z-CJ FA- -~ z..5" :T-~ c- 1 L- s. r The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time. - Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit crime prevention analysis. -/!-- Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. ) Elevations Floor Plans Landscape and Lighting Plans Yl Site Development Plans /Y . . Comments: .;JILL- dq.)~d;nj2#L-tJ E'~ it/tided Ii0JPt/7/S-lZ /-;~)'Lfs , I /J:-1 '7; ('Of i~ / cIa/Is ~ 1f~~M7#y ok:SY-rlsr .2'<' 03.Z-5 rf ~tIDY I~ :2 ("LI!s OS.' /3 "If' .---J /. . .- )II.LS~ '/.fmtJ aiL Or1S-r,f UJI ;+po/ ;qC;S fU3?tfrlSC ~11[.f!...s. . Jtu ?/, c'o(, JJipA/LY-rVL.ud JlWK-/d b-.f ,j' J.;!-e.- --b (fn)j//~ . , . uV,CL VA f '() f1 ft! '11IVref. . '-I-Its$:rJ'1 CPTED Routing Forn1 PD/cpu 06/93 DATE: .'pp.: F7,,;,"l\ / .-t'- \ 1iR~: '- ,~- '~-' (. +- ROUTING FORM April 5, 1995 Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIRon~)_ Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EI~nly) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering tB?R only) Roger Daoust, Engineering--(IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst~ity Attorney (Draft Neg Dee & EIR) Carol GOve#-~Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project TracKing Log (route form only) Other Barbara Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-20/FA-~/DQHLA-) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dee (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment (city Initiated) to change the land use designation from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing of a 3.8 acre parcel. CUrrently one half of the parcel is used as a parking lot and the remaining half is vacant. Location: Northeast corner Interstate 5 and 'L' Street extending northerly approximately SSG teet north ot 'K' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by ADril 19. 1995 Comments: - 1'--z7, '7lc.) C-ch7.'1'r U!;Yn..f-;o L 1'YY1 c--<-< ~ 2 - ' A/:, V:'- -, 4- 7 - ti ~ /} <. (1I.IL'j::>o.-c'T C71 {/'-"'-'{ CAJ:.--p- (2,./).pI:, L9J?C--ij<-l.:~-c."'~' ~ ~/7 _ -:JmLi:J '2 Pf" ~dDf4r~-tak- -,{J I'h ( u-.A) ROUTING FORM DATE: April 5, 1995 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other FROM: Barbara Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-20/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment (City Initiated) to change the land use designation from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing of a 3.8 acre parcel. currently one half of the parcel is used as a parking lot and the remaining half is vacant. Location: Northeast corner Interstate 5 and 'L' Street extending northerly approximately 550 feet north of 'K' street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by Aoril 19. 1995 . Comments: '\VD c,;;. i"....t'\-i1'~ . tf".".. 4 . ( ;l- .o...'S . ROUTING FORM DATE: April 5, 1995 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is .involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other FROM: Barbara Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-20/FA-~/DQ~) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment (city Initiated) to change the land use designation from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing of a 3.8 acre parcel. CUrrently one half of the parcel is used as a parking lot and the remaining half is vacant. Location: Northeast corner Interstate 5 and 'L' Street extending northerly approximately 550 feet north of 'K' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by April 19. 1995 . '\:-b- ~ D COJIUIJents: lJo C~~ c7. ROUTING FORM DATE: April 5, 1995 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) other FROM: Barbara Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-20/FA-~/DQHLA-) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment (City Initiated) to change the land use designation from open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing of a 3.8 acre parcel. CUrrently one half of the parcel is used as a parking lot and the remaining half is vacant. Location: Northeast corner Interstate 5 and 'L' street extending northerly approximately 550 feet north of 'K' Street Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by April 19. 1995 C01lllllents: / ~~( t'(./c;? -:.,'j __-C--'r/(~'::.-/--:- .' " <--../.... , ) //~ .}d--k/<""' /"'- ,/ <..... -,' / /'1_ /7 . /_(f-C . ./- - ;--- t: c'c:j: /-r" /"" .:.:: ......... I.' ;- /7- ,I . '--- . .;;.6:<:./ / .?-<.[:. .Lt'( C -t.-/!",'~ I / C7'---- MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 1995 TO: Barbara Reid Associate Planner FROM: ~~ Duane E. Bazzel^ Principal Planner SUBJECT: Initial Study (15-95-20) for General Plan Amendment (GPA 95-04) at NEQ of L Street & 1-5 The Advance Planning Division is currently processing the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the 4.2 ac. site located at the northeast quadrant of L Street and Interstate 5 freeway. This proposed GPA is considered a "clean-up" amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram. I. In 1975, the City Council approved the placement of the I-L-P (Limited Industrial subject to Precise Plan modifier) zone on this site. However, this site, which previously consisted of excess freeway right-of-way property, did not have a General Plan land use designation applied to it. As a result of inquiries by the property owner, the City staff realized that a General Plan designation was needed to demonstrate compliance with underlying zoning, thus the need to process this GPA. In researching all plans that might impact the site, it was brought to the attention of the Advance Planning Division staff that a "conceptual" master plan for beautification of the MTDB right-of-way was approved by the City Council in 1988, which included the subject site. The following occurred at that time: . The property, both the privately-owned and City-owned parcels, are designated for use as a park on the Project "Conceptual" Master Plan. . No authorization by the City Council for the parcel's use for park purposes has ever occurred nor does it appear on the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. . While the City Council heard a presentation of the beautification project in 1988, only City participation at "E" and "H" Streets was authorized. Barbara Reid April 19, 1995 2. Both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater High School Districts have indicated that a commitment to fully mitigate impacts associated with future student generation tied to potential industrial development on the subject site will by required. The division feels that due to the size and limited development potential of this site that this perceived impact is mitigable. Please see Ed Batchelder regarding potential language to be placed in the draft Negative Declaration, should you choose this direction. In summary, the Advance Planning Division concludes that the aforementioned park is conceptual only, that there are no plans to purchase the property for park purposes, and that the location of the site is inappropriate for a park. In accordance with the above discussion, we believe there are no significant General Plan issues associated with the proposed GPA. If you have any questions, you know where to reach us. cc: Ed Batchelder Paul Manganelli Susan Vandrew (:\I~lre('t.m('m'l 2 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. PIID. SHARON GILES PATRICK A..uoo PAMELA B. SMIT!i MlKEA.~ SUPERINTENDENT UBIAS.GIl,PhD. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425.9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH April 12, 1995 ... -- r .'--., ..-~. \.._- ~ : Ms. Barbara Reid Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 API? ~, '- ~(JC ,.. ''", - h.t,.,. " .\ \" Re: General Plan Amendment - N.E. Comer 1-5 and L Street IS 95-20 I FA-625 Dear Ms. Reid: Thank you for providing a copy of the initial study on the proposed GPA to change the land use designation from Open Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing at the location cited above. If this land use designation is approved, it will permit development where none was anticipated, and create the potential for new jobs and thus impact school facilities. The District, the Sweetwater Union High School District and the City of Chula Vista have Ileen worKing on a joint study intended to identify and quantify impacts various types of development have on schools, and develop an equitable method for mitigating these impacts. In the interim, it was our understanding that the City would not process rezonings or GPA's unless they are conditioned on whatever mitigation mechanism results from this joint study. In this case, since the proposed GPA is City initiated and a legislative act, the District requests full mitigation of any impacts future development will have on schools. This would include participation in any mitigation strategy which is implemented as a result of the joint study. Without this condition, and since there is no specific development proposal, the City's action would preclude the District from utilizing its only remaining vehicle (full mitigation for legislative acts) which provides full mitigation of school impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, Mt~~~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva c:mfsc:i54gpa Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avonuo Chulo Vilta, California 91911-2896 (619) 691.5500 Division of Planning and Facilities '. ;..,. April 12, 1995 Mr. Duane E. Bazzel Principal Planner City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 Dear M~ j;)U44U Re: Proposed General Plan AmendmentlGPA-95-04 Interstate 5 and L Street The Sweetwater Union High School District is in receipt of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed general plan amendment for the property north east of Interstate 5 and L Street. Pursuant to the Initial Study the City is the applicant. By initiating this process, the City will effectively remove the District's ability to secure full mitigation from future development. Because of this potentiality, the City had previously agreed not to process zone changes or general plan amendments until the current SourcePoint study was completed and accepted by the agencies involved. This proposed GPA is contrary to that agreement. The District cannot support the proposed GPA if full mitigation cannot be attained. Sincerely, ~,/.~ Thomas Sliva Director of Planning TSlml c: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Elementary School District 3WEETWATER AUTHOR IT' ~f;P'N.."fl'. .~.~~ ~. .;<- ~::-~,," .... .f' ' ~:~ (;l'HO,..'..... 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD BUD POCKLINGTON, CHAIRMAN GEORGE 1-1 WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J STEELE MARGARET A WELSH JAMES 5 WOLNIEwlCZ CARY F WRIGHT May 1, 1995 f' c. I' .', ~. I., WANDA. AVERY TREASURER OIAN J REEvES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATive AiDE Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1-5 AND L STREET CASE NO.: IS-95-20 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is an a-inch water main located on the north side of L Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there are no water services to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 165 map which shows the existing water facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration tc the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 90 p.s.i. to a minimum of ao p.s.i. A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid Re: Water Availability Proposed Change in Land Use Designation Northeast Corner of 1-5 and L street Case No.: IS-95-20 May 1, 1995 Page two If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 422-8395, ext. 639. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ~ L. Smyth Engineer JLS:RC:vls k:\laurie\vickie\lst.wat enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 165 map pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority / I -------- _ CLOS!.O . STlltm VACA Tao. (PIIOf>OS(D z . a m QUITCLAIMCD Iz-sw.'lItl z u ~ . . ~ ;; a z a w " '" . w . z o N " . ~ <, . N o .'.... . , . <i . o u w a }, z . '" 1 , ~ .. .' . . , o I- y, . -. I ~. / \, I I ..... / '., '.104. '.. /J'. w,o.A2060-S fI-i 12 '.',\1. . , 1'"S"::V I - , , .. - - '- -~'! '- -- " , - c: " A ,I t : I /1 :' ' ,/ ~/ tI :.../ f:.... " ' , ~. l) v. ':-') ,: , i -'" .. - I I ! " 'll K STREET.::~; I,S359 _ .-6-1', 16~60 I u 15293 2 ,--1029. - I - 1'295 , . ~~29' _ I .5291 . f----;;;;1:52~8 -: 15299UJ '_I~~O~ _ ~~5~1 &. .. ~~~!02 _~ "303 d 7 . I--'~""" -;; '~'89~ ~ ~.J:'~~.R. ~ 9 " 1 :~30!'.. r--->~3Ql1 -. '.. r~309 III f---JO'JO. -'" 39511 'j9'10 ~~ r--I_ 11. , 0 28701 F . .0 ~ 2 ~~ 28702 ~ -Q~..' ~ 2e703C_ 3: :3 <Z: III ..J ~ 0 <i ....J ~ a:: 4 8 ~ 28704 -V .. 2870. ~ . u -~ 8 ~ 28706 ~ 2:7071-- ,72 ~i 21 ;~ ,,- 2 1531] 15314 . !N~~ ",'j .. . !~~!7 lz}!6 !~~~9~ ......./ '7.10' -e~;O.-G.I...--ST I -19'2 - - 11129_ 16361_ 20 ,. 15339 1'"336 ,. 15337 17 .!2 UJ ~ ,. <( I g r 5336 ~ 15335 -~ 15 9ui z 15334 -~ 14 " '5333i~ 13 j\ .. 153321-- 12 Ir153311> 0.11129 .~ . ~,7Z ..4 TP. '2 Wo.3S1 61":\1 ANODE SIB RA ,. 28716 - 1~87171-- 287081- 28709 2B724~ e 9 N ".. l<<:!".H."u~,,"o ';" '"0'1 ."L,.rA.D', ...D1111 ,'\1.1 507.B C,A.' 64 W.O, 7907 L STREET ~t-- f/ . :~~~~ 7 1'323 ID_24 . 25~~ . 1~327 1'328 '53' Po :~~~,H.'7Z ,'GoV _6'F.H,52 0.3813 _.1. Jl"'6.F.H.LEA '52wo.3B16 16362 ., , ~ 2 ,'v'"',H. ~wo , 15385 (."&~E-r;;o.D.W.S. \ . W.O,A22292 ,"G.\l ,i 6 F,H:~4 w:079TO g .2 ' ~ 28732 15359/- 2 "368 ,,,.; ~I""I7n4 28715 ,18719L- .. 31 28731 " " '0 28714 '" 28719 - 28730 28720 G) 20 -0 ~ ~ Z ~ 21 ~<( . ." ...J " <t 0.0 <t ~ 22 0 ~ a::: 28722 3:+-~* a: ~ .. ~ 28723~ 2' 28715 13 ~ 0) . . C) " ~ o' ,"...H. '8' __ ~ wO A21700 ...;;:::a >-~~ ;g'i~1 - , /' ~ ~ % V ~ :/ 7 t,/ t/ ~ /" v/ . . -/ . /' /. ~ Z .: '!~ ~ '!!g f': I- j: i~ (/) V /:: ~: ~ . /' Uw Eg ~ ~ J,j :;; H - - . ......- ., .. 0 0 ~ 28699 ., :;j d .' ~ ." " <( <.I Z '., 0 , N .~ .. a: ~ <( . r ~ Q: , m,~~ I\...~,.ct 6.rH.IST)'71~ .......-.~W.0---9893~ 'fJ) >- u'- I- '" a: r----~---..., 1 a; I 1 :3 -J )5704f I :;) <( I - L---o-_~--_"" fJ) :;) , o .. ~ ! d! o <.:> ~ 0) z <( fJ) ,,' '.. 28712 ~ r() 12 LW It) '" 11 28711 287[0 10 26729 2' ." 29 2872:8 28727 27 2. 28626 28625 u ,_"._ : \3,o':Rit " o ~ ~ . IJ53841- 153831_ Q: 17 ~ ., 15382W 1--; 16 i:r 1 }: (D 15153811- 1~53BO l- N ~ 153 79 I~ 13 I" .; 15378 I~ 12 ci~ ON '~~ '1~377/~ ,,- ,N" " . ,n.. 15372 . 15373 7 15374 . 15375 . 15316 '0 . > '_D UI ,;~ ~ ~t, ~ ~~~~ I ~.,:. :1:"": .- ~~ ~I- ,I"gl >> !~!! , ~ 18 ~I I;~I' I~~I ~ 1r~1~~1 ~:~'~i ~I :JwO i! ..., li~~ ~ ~ .:". ~I .. Q~ i= .:::~:I. 0 ';E~:J :J c: ':0<" "' ou..w ~ 15386 2 153S7 11' 3 - 15388 4 ~ 153B9 . 15390 . 15391 7 -- . ~ 15393 I . ~~ ':~~-.,e I~349 9 J ~5360 '- . 15348 . 15347 153151 f- 7 . ,,' . , 15362 - 15346 1~363 -t 1~34~ 6 ~ J.. 4 15364"":"" 115344 7 ~ .~ j, :5 t~3G5-J ~ 15343 ;& ~ 2 I~3R _ 15342 ,. " . 1;367 - I 15341 \::-'.r,H.'~1 Ion .'''lUO',... ,'ov t.f!~-SS . ,.roW.a.". :: ~ . OPPORTUNI' :3 ARIZO! APPLICATION CANNOT Bl:. "Cu::PTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO m INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER BACKGROUND 1. Project Title Genera 1 Pl an Amendment 2. Project Location (Street address or description) Northeast corner and L Street extendinq northerly approximately 550 feet A. . INITIAL STUDY For Office Use Only Case No.IS-<1"5 - J[) '~i~7~ ~~~;~'~~~. Project No.FA-lt2':J DpSL No. DQ- e:r CIP No. Relaled Case No. Gf'A'''I<5c04 - City of Chula Vista Application Fonn 1-Q51'14 Interstate 5 north of K Street Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 571-250-18 &20: 571-170-18 3. Brief Project Description General Plan Amendment (City Initiated) to chanqe the land use desiqnation from Ooen Space to Research and Limited Manufacturing 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista Address 276 Fourth Avenue Fax# Phone 691-5101 City Chul a Vi sta State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Paul Manganelli Address 276 Fourth Ave Fax# Phone 691-5256 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required. -L General Plan Amendment _ Rezonetprezone _ Grading Permit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Permit _ Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Coastal Development Other Permit H project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from Open Space to Research and LimitedlManufac1uring . b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan _ Traffic Impact Report Hazardous Waste Assessment Arch. Elevations = Landscape Plans _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Improvement Plans _ Soils Report _ Geotechnical Report _ Hydrological Study _ Biological Study _ Archaeological Study Noise Assessment = Other Agency Permit Other Pagel wpc,j',\IIOMEll'LANNlNG\STOREIN021-A.93 (Ref. 10211.93) (Ref. 1022.93) 7. Indicate other apph"dtions for pennits or approvals that are bemg submitted at this time. a. Pennits or approvals required. -L General Plan Amendment Rezone/Prezone = Grading Permit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review = Special Use Permit _ Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Coastal Development Other Permit B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. a. 1.:1 Land Area: square footage or acreage 3. 8 acre s If land area to be dedic;ated. state acreage and purpose. b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be utilized? N/ A 2. Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use. a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d. Number of Units: I bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom Total Units e. Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use limited industrial (ultimate) b. Floor area N/ A Height of structures(s) N/ A c. Type of construction used in the structure N / A WPCP,IIIOMlN'LANNlNGISTOREIN021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Pagc2 , d. Describe major access points to the structures and the urientation to adjoining properties and streets Access from north side of L Street. Possible emerqency access from south side of K Street e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided N/ A f. Estimated number of employees per shift N/ A Number of shifts N / A Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate N/ A h. Estimated number of deliveries per day N/ A i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate N / A J. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings N/ A k. Hours of operation N/ A I. Type of exterior lighting N/ A 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 h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECf CHARACTERISTICS I. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Conttol Disttict (APCD)? no WPCJ',\IIOME>l'l.ANNlNCJIS"I"OItEIN021-A.93 (lid. 1020.93) (lid. 1022.93) Page 3 2. Is any type of grai ~ b_ excavation of the property anticip~ ! nn H yes, complete the following: a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill 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.) N/A 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) none 5. H the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. NI A 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7. How many estimated automobile ttips, per day, will be generated by the project? 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. N/ A WPC:F,'HOMElPlANNlNGISI"OIlEI:N021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 4 D. DESCRWTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made? no (If yes, please attach) no 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? no (If yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? San Diego Trolley and Interstate 5 Freeway b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single- family residences)? N/ A 4. Biology a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? no b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? no c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No X (Please attach a copy,) d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter, and species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. Mature California Pepper trees on portion of site WPC:F;'H)~CMTOREIN021.A.93 (Ref. 1021).93) (Ref. 1022.93) PogeS I '- 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? no b. Are there any known paleontological resources? no c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? no d. What was the land previously used for? unknown 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses cWTently existing on the project site. One half acre presently used as a parking lot--the remainder vacant b. Describe all structures and land uses CUITently existing on adjacent propeny. Nonh vacant South truck rental yard East multiple family dwellinQs. duplexes. San DieQo Trollev tracks West Interstate 5 Freewav 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? no If so, how many? b. Are there any CUITent employment opponunities ~n site? no If so, how many and what type? 8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. . Pace 6 WPCoF,\IIOIdE:'J>1ANNING\S'T"OIlED\I021.A,93 (Rd. 1021>.93) (Rd. 1022.93) E. CERTIFICATION I, as owner/owner in escrow* Print name or I, consultant or agent. yu ~ t... 8A<=-....r:~L _P~;J"c..>, PA-L 0-A-.i tJEAL Print name HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and infonnanon herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known infonnanon concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or L- ~/2.-t3/q6 Date I I *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. wpc,p,'HOMEll'LANNlNGISI"OREi1II021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Poge?