HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1984/02/22 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, February 22, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 8, 1984
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-84-9: Request to
establish a self-serve gasoline station/car wash
at the southeast corner Bonita Road and Bonita
Glen Drive - Shell Oil Company
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCM-80-13-A: An amendment to the
approved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the
Rice Canyon Area of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan - Financial Scene, Inc., and Terra Nova Associates
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-84-6: Request to construct
a 51-unit condominium/apartment project on north side
of 'K' Street between Third and Fourth Avenues -
Mary Kaye
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of PCA-84-2: An amendment to Chapter 19.46,
I-General Industrial zone of the Municipal Code by
revising the permitted and conditional uses of the I-zone
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of March 14, 1984
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
To: City Pla...,ing Commission
From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of February 22, 1984
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-9; request to establish
a self-serve oas station and car wash at the southeast
corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive Shell
Oil company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting permission to establish a self-serve gas
station and automatic car wash at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and
Bonita Glen Drive in the C-C-P zone.
2. A previously prepared Environmental Impact Report (EIR-77-2 and
IS-83-13) has been received by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
It has been determined that the previously prepared environmental document is
adequate for the environmental analysis of this project and recommends that
the Planning Commission certify EIR-77-2 prior to taking any action on the
project.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Recertify EIR-77-2 with the notation that the information contained
therein is adequate for the environmental review of this project.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to deny the request, PCC-84-9.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North C-V-P Texaco, Mex-Insur, Love's & Ramada Inn
South Bonita Glen S.P. Vacant
East Bonita Glen S.P. Denny's Restaurant
West C-N-P Union 76 Service Station
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site is 20,000+ sq. ft. vacant parcel located at the
southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive. The property is nearly
rectangular and level with the rear {south) portion of the lot approximately 3
feet higher in elevation. The property lies within the lO0-year flood level
of the Sweetwater River flood plain. There is a private 20-foot wide easement
extending parallel to the easterly property line.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 2
3. Proposed use.
The applicant wishes to establish a self-serve gas station and
automatic car wash on the subject property. There will be 3 pump islands and
cashiers kiosk covered by a single canopy of a trellis design. The support
columns will be stucco as will the kiosk. The automatic car wash is proposed
along the southerly property line and will be of contemporary Spanish design
with a stucco exterior and mission tile roof. It is proposed to have the cars
enter on the east end of the car wash building and exit from the west end
nearest Bonita Glen Drive. Access to the site will be via two driveways on
Bonita Road and one driveway on Bonita Glen Drive near the southerly property
line. Signs include an 8-foot high monument sign at the corner, signs on the
canopy, as well as price signs along each frontage. Landscaping is proposed
along each frontage and along the easterly and southerly property lines.
Landscaped planters are also proposed under the canopy area which are to be
planted with bougainvillea, a vine-type plant which will be allowed to grow
into the trellis-type canopy.
As proposed, the car wash would function as an accessory use to the
self-service gas station. Patrons would get a free car wash upon a gas
fill-up of a certain amount or receive the wash for a fee without purchase ~f
gasoline. It is designed to wash one automobile at a time and is not expected
to generate a significant amount of traffic. Architecturally, the car wash
provides structural substance to the site which otherwise appears very open.
The Design Review Committee is scheduled to consider design issues on March 1.
4. Previous requests.
Shell Oil Company has owned the subject property for approximately 16
years. A conditional use permit for a service station was granted in 1968
which was allowed to expire in 1974 after being granted four extensions. The
applicant has listed reasons for not c~nstructing at the time are: l) 1-805
had not yet been constructed; and 2) the shortage of gasoline during that time
period. Shell applied for another permit (PCC-75-19) in 1975 which was denied
by the Planning Commission and by the City Council upon appeal.
In 1977 the property was made a part of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan
which does not allow either service stations or car washes. In early 1983
Shell ~il Company requested an amendment to the specific plan to allow these
uses within the specific plan area. The Planning Department recommended
against the amendment and the request was denied by the City Council after
recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission (4-3 vote). In January
1984 the subject property was deleted from the boundaries of the specific plan
and the underlying C-C-P zoning became effective allowing the applicant to
-2-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 3
reappl¥ for a conditional use permit. The City Council directed that any
action on the application be forwarded to them as an automatic appeal. The
extraordinary four-fifths vote is still in effect and would be required for
the City Council to overturn any decision of the Planning Commission.
D. ANALYSIS
The adopted Bonita Glen Specific Plan schematically identified access
points on Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive. The plan also specified that in
order to provide adequate on-site circulation and parking that nonexclusive
access agreements were to be provided for the benefit of all property owners
in the area.
The exclusion of the Shell Oil site from the Bonita Glen plan leaves the
area wi th two property ownerships (refer to Exhibit "A").
Area "B" owned by 805 Properties Inc. has moved ahead with the
construction of Denny's Restaurant and is submitting plans to complete the
remaining area with retail and office buildings. The owner of Area "C" ha~
been contacted by the Planning Department to determine the feasibility of
allowing access across that site to Bonita Glen Drive in conformance with the
adopted plan. The owner of parcel "C" has expressed an unwillingness to agree
to the access.
Elimination of Shell's car wash near the south property line would allow
access to be provided to serve the 805 properties for at least an interim
period until parcel "C" is proposed for development. This would preclude the
construction of the automatic car wash at this time.
ALTERNATIVE RECOM~ENDATION
As an alternative recommendation to denying the service station at the
southeast corner of Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive, approve the request
subject to the following conditions:
a. The architecture and sign program shall be approved by the City's
Design Review Committee in accordance with basic guidelines
established for the Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
b. A 24-foot wide access easement for the parcels located to the east of
this site shall be provided near the southerly portion of the
property subject to the Planning Director's approval. Said easement
to remain in effect indefinitely unless an alternate access easement
is provided across the property to the south at which time the
applicant may request elimination of the easement as well as approval
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 4
of the car wash as a modification to this permit. NOTE: All parties
using the easement shall have equal responsibilities for maintenance
thereof and a signed agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
occupancy of station. If the staff's recommendation to reserve an
access easement along the southerly property line is accepted by the
Planning Commission, the decision on the car wash would be deferred
to a later time as a modification to the conditional use permit.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION
The staff recommendation is consistent with past positions; however, staff
recognizes that the Planning Commission has previously supported the Shell
request to remove the property from the Bonita Glen Specific Plan as well as
the Council action to do the same. The interrelationship between the three
properties at this location still exists despite the removal of Shell ~il from
the Specific Plan. From an architectural standpoint, the service station will
not add to the high degree of quality originally envisioned for this gateway
entry to the City, despite the commendable efforts of Shell Oil to design a
very attractive facility.
Secondly, the problems of coordinating the ingress and egress and on-site
circulation between the three properties involved has become increasingly
difficult. This latter issue is not yet resolved and there is a potential
problem that as development proceeds, the on and off-site circulation will
become more difficult to solve.
The alternative staff recommendation is a recognition that the problems
mentioned in this report are not necessarily attributable to Shell Oil;
however, the strategic location of their ownership is central to keeping
options open for adequate ingress and egress for the other properties
currently proposed for development.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The gasoline needs of the surrounding area and freeway motorists can
be met by the two existing service stations in the immediate
vicinity. The site is poorly suited to serve the needs of northbound
traffic on 1-805 whereas the other stations can adequately serve the
east and westbound traffic on Bonita Road.
-4-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 5
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
Providing two additional curb cuts along this portion of Bonita Road
will create points of traffic conflict which could prove to be
detrimental to the safety and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the area.
3. That the proposed use will c~ly with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The use could 'be made to comply with all codes and conditions of
approval.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The proposed use would have no adverse effect on the General Plan.
WPC 0758P
-5-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 6
F. ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS (Approval)
1. The proposed use is located on a major interchange and would expand
the level of gasoline service at this location.
2. Even though the project be architecturally different from existing
and anticipated development in the immediate vicinity, the site can
be landscaped to offer a pleasing appearance from the street. Its
open design would permit higher visibility of adjoining uses.
3. The proposed use will meet all applicable codes and conditions of
approval.
4. Approval of this request will not affect the General Plan.
WPC 0758P
-6-
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BONITA GLEN SPECIFIC PLAN
EIR-77-2
Issued by
Environmental Review Committee
March 17, 1977
Adopted by
'Chula Vista Planning Commission
April 20, 1977
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Section 1.0 Introduction .............. 1
2.0 Project Description .............. 2
3.0 Impact Analysis ................ 6
4.0 Unavoidable Adverse
........... 17
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed
..... 17
6.0 Relationship between local short
term use of the environment and
the maintenance and enhancement
of long term productivity ........... 17
7.0 Irreversable Environmental changes
that will result from the proposed
project ....... 18
8.0 Growth-inducing Impact of the
proposed action ................ 18
9.0 Effects found not to be
significant .................. 18
10.0 Input ................. 19
List of Figures
Location Map 21
Conceptual Plan Alternative A 22
Conceptual Plan Alternative B 23
seismic Map 24
Noise Contours Map 25
Appendices on file in the Planning Dept. and available for
public review.
A. Initial Study 76-114
B. Bonita Glen Specific Plan
C. Noise Analysis
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared
by the City of Chula Vista to provide the public and
decision making authorities with an analysis of the
possible environmental consequences of implementing
the Bonita Glen Specific Plan. This document will
also discuss methods by which adverse impacts could
be mitigated and possible alternatives to the project
as proposed. This EIR has been prepared in compliance
with the Environmental Review Policy of the City of
Chula Vista and the Calif. Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended.
Discretionary acts to be reviewed in consideration of
the project include adoption of the specific plan,
rezoning of a portion of the site, prezoning of
another area and annexation of about 1.42 acres to
the City of Chula Vista.
Appendix A of this EIR is the evaluation form which
resulted from the Initial Study of this project. This
document will discuss those aspects of the project
which could involve substantial and adverse environ-
mental impacts identified in the initial study.
1.2 Executive Summary
1.2.1 This project involves the adoption of a
specific plan which would regulate the develop-
ment located at the southwest quadrant of Bonita
Road & 1-805. The project could involve a
mixture of commercial and residential uses.
1.2.2 There is an inferred earthquake fault
trace which could transverse the site. A
Registered Engineering Geologist should be
present during the grading of the site to insure
that no substantial hazard is present.
1.2.3 The site does have adverse soil conditions,
however these environmental impacts can be mitigated
through standard development regulations.
1.2.4 Any adverse effect on ground water due to
this project and any impacts on this project due
to ground water can be fully mitigated. However,
on a long term cumulative basis, continued develop-
ment in this general area will reduce the quality
of ground water significantly.
1.2.5 Although a portion of the project site
is located on the fringe of the Sweetwater
River flood plain, there will be no adverse
effects due to this project.
1.2.6 There will be an irreversible change in
the land form of the project site. These impacts
can be mitigated through standard development
regulations.
1.2.7 The project will have an individually
insignificant impact on air quality, but an
incremental and cumulatively significant impact.
1.2.8 Mitigation measures can reduce the adverse
noise impacts from 1-805 traffic to an insignificant
level.
1.2.9 Through the specific plan regulations,
implementation of the gateway policies of the
Scenic Route Element of the General Plan can be
assured.
1.2.10 The elementary and junior high school
facilities which serve this project are currently
over capacity. If the residential element of the
plan becomes more dominant, a potentially signi-
ficant impact could result.
1.2.11 The project will result in a substantial
increase in traffic volumes. Through mitigation
proposed in this EIR, Bonita Glen Dr. and its
intersection with Bonita Rd. can adequately
accommodate the increased volumes. However, the
proposed access directly onto Bonita Rd. could
cause a substantial and adverse impact on the
ability of Bonita Rd. to accommodate future
traffic volumes and the safety of motorists near
the Bonita Rd.-I-805 interchange. Through
mitigation proposed in this EIR, which would
preclude left hand turn movements, this
significant impact can be avoided.
BONITA ROAD
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 8
c. Lot 331 (approximately ll.6 acres) shall be designated for
residential land use at a maximum density of 232 units or
approximately 20 units per acre. The development shall adhere
to the City's R-3 zoning standards and the adopted Chula Vista
Design Manual, subject to Design Review Committee approval.
d.' A minimum of 20% of the 232 apartment units and 100% of the
senior units shall be designated for low-income families subject
to the approval of an agreement between the developer and the
City Council. (Note: 24 additional low-income units shall be
provided on Lot 330 or another residential development within
the Rice Canyon SPA subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.)
e. Joint access agreements for Lots 331 and 332 shall be recorded
in accordance with the approved site plans.
C. DISCUSSInN
Approved SPA Plan
In 1980 the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area /SPA) Plan
for the Rice Canyon area of the E1 Rancho Del Rey IERDR) Specific Plan as well
as the tentative subdivision map (Hidden Vista Village) covering the entire
450 acres. Under the provisions of the ERDR Specific Plan text, the City also
approved the residential development of areas designated for commercial/
recreation along the south side of East "H" Street with the exception of Lot
331 which was to be developed with a recreation building, tennis courts,
swimming pool, and parking for approximately 60 cars. Lot 330 (immediately
east of Lot 331) was approved for 140 apartment/ condominium units. Lot 332
(immediately to the west) was originally to be developed with 232 units of
Section 8 housing, but since the time of approval, the Section 8 housing
program has been discontinued by the Federal Government. In ~ctober 1983 the
City Council approved the land use to provide for the development of 232 units
on Lot 332.
Proposed Amendment
The applicant is now requesting that Lot 331 also be allowed to be
developed residentially and is proposing to develop a 150-unit senior housing
project adjacent to the commercial retail area along "H" Street. Rather than
locate the senior project between the two apartment projects, the applicant
wishes to develop the westerly 3+ acres of Lot 332 with the senior project and
shift the low and moderate income project easterly. This would place the
senior project adjacent to the proposed commercial area for convenient
shopping and services. In addition the change in land use would allow the two
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 9
apartment-type projects to be placed together shifting the senior project from
the main access area. Approval of the senior housing project at the proposed
location will require filing an adjustment plat or parcel map to relocate the
common property line between lots 331 and 332.
At the time of this writing, no specific development plans for either
project has been submitted, but staff has been working with the developer on
the preliminary plans. The plans resulting from this review will be submitted
for approval at a later date.
D. ANALYSIS
The two major points of this request are: 1) changing the 3+ acre
commercial/recreation use to a residential designation and (2) allowing the
development of a 150-unit senior housing project. In the first instance, it
is believed that the residential development of the property would better
serve the community by providing additional housing opportunities.
Commercial/recreation activities can be a viable land use serving the
community when supported by proper market analyses. The original land use
designation was proposed by a former property owner without benefit of any
market study. The residential developments planned in this area of Chula
Vista are, for the most part, self contained offering residents on-site
recreational amenities. The deletion of the commercial/recreation land use
appears to make more economic and planning sense in view of the emerging
development patterns.
In the case of the senior housing project, the City Council has expressed
a desire to disperse these projects throughout the city rather than
concentrate them in one area. Approval of this request will assist in
fulfilling that goal. Normally, senior housing projects require Planning
Commission and City Council approval through the conditional use permit
process. In this instance, however, the applicant is seeking conceptual
approval of the senior housing project. Since this request is subject to a
public hearing, the public has the opportunity to speak on this issue and
conditions of approval are being recommended which would make the permit
process unnecessary. It is further recommended that the project design be
subject to approval of the Design Review Committee which is also conducted as
a public hearing.
Another significant issue involves the total number of affordable units
being proposed in the two projects. As indicated earlier, the original SPA
plan approval included a commitment F,}r the construction of 232 low-income
units within the Rice Canyon SPA. The present developer of the apartment
project has proposed that 20% of the 232 units (46 units) will be available
for low income families as well as all 150 of the senior units (see attached
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 10
Exhibit "A"). The 46 units combined with the 150 units of senior housing
brings the commitment to a total of 196 units, or 36 units less than
originally proposed. This issue is best described in the memo from City
Housing Coordinator Dave Gustafson /attached hereto as Exhibit "B") wherein it
is suggested that 30% of the 232 unit apartment project or 69 units be devoted
to low income ra~ilies.
Since the memo was written, a meeting was held between the City's Housing
Coordinator, the Planning Director, a representative of Financial Scenes and
the developer of the 232-unit apartment project. As a result of that meeting,
Financial Scene has agreed to make the commitment for the additional 24
low-inco~e ;~ni~s il one of the future development phases. The adjacent
condominium development planned for 140 units on the south side of "H" Street
as well as the proposed 358 condominium units planned on the north side of "H"
Street offer the best opportunity to fullfil the low-income commitment.
WPC 0752P
-- FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RICE CANYON SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
EIR-79-8
ISSUED FOR REVIEW BY THE
CHULA VISTA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 10, 1979
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
by
ADVANCE PLANNING & RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
3420 Kenyon Street Suite 214
San Diego, California 92110
PROJECT PROPONENT
W & G DEVELOP}~NT CO. , INC.
2160 Fletcher Parkway - Suite O
E1 Cajon, California 92020
APR #79-0206
I .0 INTRODUCTION
1 .1 PURPOSE
This document addresses the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
of E1 Rancho del Rey, a 419-acre Planned Community (PC) project,
located at the end of East H Street, just east of Interstate 805,
bounded at the north and south by housing developments and to the
east by vacant land.
The project, which would include 224 multi-family units,
334 single-family dwellings, 638 condominiums, and 188,000 square
feet of commercial, office and retail space, is the initial phase
of development in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 78-2) was prepared by
the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Committee and
Planning Department for the overall Specific Plan Area on
December 23, 1977, and certified by the Chula Vista Planning
Commission on February 22, 1978. Later, on August 8, 1978, the
plan diagram and text of the Specific Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey
was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council.
The purpose of this EIR is to investigate and evaluate
environmental issues related to the proposed development plan for
the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area (SPA), some of which have
been previously addressed in the original E1 Rancho del Rey EIR.
The report is intended to inform the general public and enable
appropriate public agencies to evaluate environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives of the Rice Canyon SPA.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the State
of California Guidelines for the Preparation and Evaluation of
Environmental Impact Reports under the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, with recent amme ndments , as well as
procedures established by the City of Chula Vista.
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rice Canyon SPA is the initial phase of the E1 Rancho
del Rey Specific Plan Area. The owner/developer of the property
has applied the name Hidden Vista Village to the projeot. Some
of the references to the project, particularly in the technical
attachments, will refer to the project using the Hidden Vista
Village name. The project design is intended to be in accordance
with the land use prescribed for the project site. The mixed
residential and commercial development would occur at the
specified densities and locations established in the E1 Rancho
del Rey Plan.
The project is to be a planned community which would
integrate a number of land uses. Single-family and multi-family
dwellings would be built on either side of East R Street. East H
Street would be improved to the southeast corner of the project.
Within the residential area to the north of East H Street are
lots which would be improved and dedicated as sites for a fire
station, junior high school, elementary school, and park. South
of East H Street, land use would include a shopping center,
park-and-ride lot, recreation club, office space, and
multi-family dwellings. The possibility of low-cost housing in
the multi-family units exists.
While the project is substantially in conformance with the
zoning and planning for the project, implementation of the
project would result in a number of environmental effects.
Likewise, existing conditions on the property, i.e., fault
traces, would affect development. Mitigation does exist which,
as incorporated into project design, would substantially reduce
the impacts associated with the project. Despite the ability to
minimize the effect, many of the impacts cannot be completely
avoided.
Grading would have an adverse effect on the subject
property. Major landform modification would be necessary to
create the building sites. In the process of site preparation, a
number of large cut and fill banks would be created. The
aesthetic value of the project site would also be affected by
grading as natural topography is modified and natural vegetation
is removed. Grading would have the most effect on landform and
aesthetic characteristics of the project.
Geologic conditions present on the subject property could
also impact the proposed development. Seismic hazard would be
~ke principal geologic feature affecting future buildings and
occupants of the proposed Rice Canyon SPA. Several fault traces,
including the Sweetwater Fault Zone, have been found on the
project site. Although considered only potentially active, these
zones of weakness do present a hazard on the property should
earth movement occur along these zones. The impact can be
substaatially reduced through setback or construction
regulations.
Several areas of expansive or alluvial soil exist on the
property. Standard grading and building code requirements would
mitigate potential effects of these soils on development.
The Rice Canyon SPA would increase the volume of surface
water runoff which could have an affect on-site and off-site.
Erosion and subsequent sedimentation of drainage structures
downstream could result. Although specific drainage control
within the project has not been designed, it is expected that
surface water can be collected and transported in a manner which
would avoid erosion.
Prehistoric archaeological resources do occur on the
property. All but two of these sites are located in areas which
would be graded. These sites appear to be relatively small finds
which, if necessary, can easily be mitigated by a surface
collection, subsurface testing and microma pping program.
Urbanization of the Rice Canyon SPA would adversely affect the
existing biologic habitat. Grading would remove vegetation from
something less than three-quarters of the property. In the
process, portions of populations of sensitive plant species
identified ia the biology survey may be destroyed.
Transformation of the natural habitat on the site would force
wildlife to retreat to undeveloped land within, and east of, the
project, thus increasing competition for food and range
limitations which would ultimately decrease populations. The
preservation of 125 acres with the project would partially
mitigate this impact. Further mitigation of clearing on specific
sensitive plants could be made through a transplanting program,
although these techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated for
their effectiveness.
The commercial and residential land uses proposed by the
project would generate a substantial amount of traffic. Streets
and intersections within the project have been designed to
adequately handle project-generated traffic. However,
limitations may become evident as traffic increases along the
Rice Canyon SPA circulation system with the completion of the
entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. The capacity of the
system can be improved by widening major Streets in order to
accommodate future traffic volume generated off-site. Other
alternatives for alleviating traffic congestion include left-turn
lanes and a median opening at the northwest access point for the
commercial center.
The traffic generated by the project would increase air
pollutant emissions. Motor vehicle emissions are the major
source of air quality degradation. When viewed from a regional
perspective, the project would not significantly increase air
pollutants but wo.uld represent an incremental increase. Several
features of the Rice Canyon SPA including: the park-and-ride
facility; proximity of schools and shopping; and bicycle paths;
would partially reduce the potential impact. State and Federal
laws are also expected to lower vehicular emissions.
Noise levels would be raised om the property following
development. Traffic would be the principal source. Interstate
805 would continue to produce high levels of noise. East H
Street, "Street K", and Ridgeback Road, would eventually carry
enough traffic to result in unacceptable noise. However,
unacceptable noise levels, as indicated by contours generated in
the noise analysis, would not be expected to significantly affect
residential areas.
Demand on local public services would increase as the
development phases are completed. Correspondence with the
various districts and companies responsible for providing these
services revealed a general ability to absorb the development
without significant effect on staff or facilities. However, the
local school districts and the Metropolitan Sewer District would
be significantly affected. Both the elementary and high school
district facilities are overcrowded. The students to be
generated by the project would further crowd the districts. Fees
would be assessed to the developer to provide temporary
facilities. In addition, dedicated school sites are proposed
within the Rice Canyon SPA. The Metropolitan Sewer District
indicates that it has no excess capacity. A new treatment
facility is planned by 1985; in the interim, the District is
contractually obligated to accept sewage from the property, but
its ability to process it could be uncertain.
The consumption of energy for construction,
transportation, commercial, and domestic purposes, would further
increase the demand for non-renewable resources. Available
mitigation to reduce this effect include: ca rpooling;
governmental regulation; energy-efficient appliances and
insulation; as well as incorporating alternative energy systems
such as solar.
4
Fi=o~me 1. SITE AND VICINITY P~P
~,! ~j
:-2U :,.. ;_ :5?
RECEIVED
FEB 1
February 1, 1984 PLANNING DEPART~viENT
CltULA VISTA, C,V_IF3RNIA
TO: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
FROM: Dave Gustafson, Housing CoordinatorA.~
SUBJECT: East "H" Street multi-family housing site
You have asked for a clarification of the discussions which have occurred
between the prospective developers of the east "H" Street multi-family
housing site, Patrick Development, and the Community Development Department
and Ken Lee. Below is the summary of the major points of that discussion:
1. The original subdivision approval called for 232 low and moderate-
income units on the east "H" Street site.
2. The provision of those low and moderate-income units was a trade-
off with the developer for an increase in the subdivision's unit
count from approximately 800 to approximately 1200.
3. The approval document provides no definition of low and moderate-
income, nor does it address the mix of low and moderate-income units.
4. It is the developer's contention that low and moderate-income meant
the definition of currency with the State Department of Housing &
Community Development and with HUD, which is that low income means
at or below 80% of median income is between 81% and 120% of median
income. It is the dev~oper's further contention that a mix of 80%
moderate-income units and 20% low-income units, the distribution
necessary to qualify for tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds under
federal regulations, is sociologically optimum and economically
essential.
5. It is the staff contention that although low and moderate-income is
not defined and the mix of low and moderate-income is not addressed,
it was the expectation of the City Council that the 232 units would
be constructed as a Section 8 New Construction project. That would
mean that 100% of the units would have been for low-income household
occupancy.
6. It is staff's opinion that a Section 8 New Construction project with
100% occupancy by low-income households would have been appropriate
for the site. The impact of 232 low-income rental units would have
been ameliorated by the stringent management and maintenance re-
quirements associated with a HUD-funded project. However, the
Section 8 New Construction program no longer exists.
Mando Liuag
February 1, 1984
Page Two
7. Staff further believes that a non-HUD-subsidized family rental project
with 100% low-income occupancy would be economically infeasible and,
lacking HUD management and maintenance standards, would be prone to
negative impact on the Terra Nova project.
8. Staff has suggested that the intent of the Council's original approval
could be realized by the following plan:
a. Shifting the boundaries of the multi-family site and the commercial/
recreational site by Financial Scene, Inc. to create a senior
multi-family site adjacent to the major commercial site.
b. Provision of 150 senior rental units by Financial Scene, Inc.
on the senior multi-family site, all of which would be affordable
to low-income households.
c. Provision of 30% of the 232 family apartment units as affordable
to low-income families by Patrick Development.
Staff and the developer are at an impasse in negotiations on this plan. The
parcel reconfiguration and the development of 150 low-income senior units were
proposed by Financial Scene. However, Patrick Development, in their most recent
correspondence, indicated that they are willing to provide only 20% of the 232
family apartment units as affordable to low-income households. It should be
noted that I have made the developer aware of the possibility of Redevelopment
Agency financial assistance from the Low and Moderate-Income Housing Fund to
accomplish the increment from 20% of the family units to 30% of the family units
being affordable to low-income households.
DKG:as
cc: Paul Desrochers Bud Gray
Ken Lee
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meetin§ of February 22, 1984 Page 11
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-6; request to construct
a 51-unit condominium/apartment project at ~25-345 "K"
Street - Mary Kaye
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 51-unit
condominium/apartment project on 1.68 acres located on the north side of "K"
Street between Third and Fourth Avenues (325-345 "K" Street) in the C-n and
C-C zones.
2. An Initial Study, IS-84-9, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
February 3, 1984. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-9.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-84-6, to construct a 51-unit condominium/
apartment project at 325-345 "K" Street subject to the following conditions:
a. The proposed project shall be subject to Design Review Committee
review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
b. The lots shall be consolidated prior to the issuance of any
building pemits.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-3 Apartments
South C-C and R-3 Welding Supply and Apartments
East R-3 and C-C Apartments & Equipment Rental
West R-3 and C-O Apartments and Office Building
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site is comprised of four parcels which form a U-shaped
configuration totaling 1.68 acres. The street frontage is interrupted in the
center by a 170'x120' lot occupied by a welding shop at 341 "K" Street. The
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 12
subject property has 43 feet of street frontage along the east end and 107
feet along the west. The majority of the property is vacant except for an
unoccupied industrial building once used for a transfer and storage operation.
3. Previous conditional use permit.
The Municipal Code provides that multiple family developments at densities
up to 32 units per acre may be approved in C-O zoned properties with the
approval of a conditional use permit.
In April 1980 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit
(PCC-80-15) for the development of a 20-unit apartment/condominium project on
1.36 acres of the property. The difference between the two proposals is that
the original request did not include the area on which the warehouse structure
is situated (approximately 0.32 acres) and the density was approximately 15
units per acre.
4. Proposed development.
The applicant proposes to construct a 51-unit apartment/condominium
project on the 1.68 acres, a density of approximately 30 units per acre. The
project will consist of three residential structures, each three stories in
height. There will be a 12-unit structure, 21-unit structure and an 18-unit
structure. All of the units will be two bedroom. There will be 17 flat
ground level units and 34 townhouse units constructed over the flat units.
Parking for 93 cars (54 in carports and 39 open spaces) will be provided on
the periphery of the project. Amenities include a swimming pool and a laundry
and storage structure in the center of the project. The proposed development
meets the condominium requirement relating to open space, private open space,
and parking but does not contain the required private storage. This
deficiency will have to be resolved before a tentative subdivision map can be
approved.
D. ANALYSIS
The primary issue of whether or not a residential land use is appropriate
at this location was resolved at the time of the previous request. At issue
now is the expansion of the residential land use and an increase in density
equating to twice what was originally proposed {15 DU's/acre versus 30
DU's/acre).
The inclusion of approximately one third acre to the total site is not
significant even though it does bring the residential development closer to
the street. With the exception of the office complex, welding operation and
the other commercial activities to the east, the land uses along "K" Street
are primarily residential; therefore, the proposed development is in keeping
with the character of the street.
With respect to density, the change in lot configuration, design and
especially circulation (the original project was designed as a cul-de-sac
whereas this project has a circular circulation system), the increase in
m2--
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 13
density has been easily achieved. It should be noted that there are still
details to be worked o~zt in the design which could reduce the number of units
in the final design. As recommended previously, the site plan and
architectural review should be forwarded to the Design Review Committee for
approval.
Because of the workload at the time and subsequent changes in personnel,
the Planning Department has not completed its study of this area for possible
rezoning as originally requested by the Planning Commission with the previous
project. Approval of the request will not interfere with any proposed
rezoning of this area which is taking on a much stronger residential character
rather than commercial,
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The subject property is located on the portion of "K" Street which is
residential in character and the residential development represents a
more appropriate land use for the property. Extension of the
commercial into the area would adversely affect the residential
development.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The proposed use is in keeping with the adjoining land uses on three
sides. Adequate screening from the adjacent non-conforming use has
been incorporated into the plan; namely, a ten foot high wall along
the westerly and northerly property line of the welding operation.
3. That the proposed use will c~ly with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The project will be subject to site plan and architectural approval
by the Design Review Committee and a tentative map will be required
for the condominiums.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this request
since there are still commercial properties fronting on the street in
accordance with the land use designation for this area.
WPC 0753P/001 5Z
~--'J~ _ . j u ST. _, ' -- ---~
POST OFFICE
M F D V~
M~
WEL~ER
SUPPLY ~ RE~t~
~ ST~AGE
/ I I I ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~s~..I
1',' ' ' ~ ~ ~;~
[ //I ~o I¢i r~o ~ c~¢o~,,,~ /
Apo~m~
negative Jeclaration--
PROJECT NAME: Snug Haven Condominiums
PROJECT LOCATION: 325-345 "K" Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: Mary Kaye
CASE NO: IS-84-9 DATE: February 3, 1984
A. Project Setting
The project site involves 1.68 acres of property located 300 feet west of
Third Avenue on the north side of "K" Street. The site has been partially
cleared for development and one existing warehouse-type structure is
presently located on the property. The adjacent land uses consist of a
welder supply business and "K" Street to the south, multiple family, and
an equipment rental business to the east, multiple family to the north and
multiple family and professional offices to the west.
The project site is void of any significant vegetation or wildlife and
there are no significant natural or manmade resources present. No known
geologic hazards have been identified at the project vicinity.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of 51 condominum units (all two bedroom)
located in three 3-story structures. In addition, the proposed project
contains 93 on-site parking spaces. Two 24-foot wide access drives from
"K" Street will serve the propoged project.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Multiple family units are permitted in the C-O and C-C zones subject to
approval of a conditional use permit. Approval of a proposed 10-foot high
wall between the adjacent welders supply land use and the proposed project
will require approval of the Planning Commission. The project is in basic
conformance with the General Plan.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
I. Soils
Adverse soil conditions have been addressed in a soils report
submitted by the applicant (Southern California Soil Testing, Inc.,
1981). Recommendations included in the report will reduce impacts to
a level of insignificance.
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
- 2 -
2. Schools
The local elementary and junior high schools are operating above
capacity. The additional students (10 elementary and 15 junior high)
generated from this project will further tax an existing condition of
overcrowding. The developer shall comply with School District
requirements to assure that adequate classroom space will be
available.
3. Parks
This project will increase the need for .park facilities in this
area. Standard development requirements dictate that the applicant
will be required to pay park in-lieu fees for acquisition and
development of future park land.
4. Fire Safety
Adjacent land use to the south and east of some of the proposed
residential units is a welders supply business which routinely stores
flammable products within existing commercial structures. A 10-foot
high masonry wall is proposed by the applicant to provide fire safety
to the ~roposed project. The City's Fire Marshal indicates that the
wall is necessary to provide a reasonable degree of protection for
the future residents.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. A 10-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north and
west property lines of the adjacent welders supply land use.
(The following measures are standard development requirements):
2. Recommendations contained in the soils report submitted by the
applicant shall reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
3. The developer shall ~omply with the public services element of the
General Plan relating to school facilities.
4. The developer shall pay park acquisition and development in-lieu fees
concurrent with the final subdivision map.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The project site is void of any significant natural or manmade
resources. Adverse soil conditions have been addressed with
recommendations contained in a previously prepared soils report
(Southern California Soil Testing, Inc., 1981)
2. The residential proposal is consistent with the General Plan and
associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve short term to
the disadvantage of long term environmental goals.
- 3 -
3. No impacts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a
substantial cumulative effect on the environment.
4. The project will result in limited additional vehicle and no
significant increase in related emission or noise will occur. The
proposed 10'~ high wall will preclude any significant impact on human
beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Tom Dyke, Building Department
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Laurence Reuden - Applicant's designer
2. Documents
IS-80-54, Snuo Harbor Condominiums
Soils Report (Southern California Soil Testing, Inc. 1981)
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
~ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 0745P
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
city of chula vista planning department
e~vironmental review section
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of February 22, 1984 Page 14
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-84-2 - Consideration of proposed amendment to
Chapter 19.46 I-General Industrial Zone requirin~ City
Council approval of certain conditional uses.
A. BACKGROUND
In December 1983 the City Council amended Chapter 19.54, Unclassified Uses
requiring Council approval for those uses having a citywide impact. The
CounCil also directed the staff to prepare an amendment to the Code to require
Council approval for those uses involving hazardous waste materials which is
the subject of this report.
An Initial Study, IS-84-18, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator, who on
February l, 1984, concluded that there would be no significant environmental
effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
I. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-18.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that City Council enact an ordinance
amending Chapter 19.46, as shown on attached Exhibit "A."
C. DISCUSSION
The majority of the uses involving hazardous waste materials or uses
involving a hazardous potential (i.e., chemical manufacturing) are classified
as heavy industrial uses and are permitted only in the I-General Industrial
zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning
Commission.
The probability of these heavy industrial uses wishing to locate in the
City of Chula Vista is remote. This is supported by the fact that not one
application has been submitted since the adoption of the present zoning
ordinance in 1969. In addition these uses are not in keeping with the
character of the City of Chula Vista, therefore, it is recommended that these
uses be prohibited from locating in the City. This exclusion should §e
reflected by listing them as uses expressly prohibited in the zone.
In reviewing the permitted uses in the I zone, it was determined that some of
the uses had certain characteristics which could have an impact on the
community and should be subject to a use permit rather than remain listed as
an allowable use. These uses are in part: meat packing, large scale
bleaching-cleaning and dyeing establishments, brewing and distilling, and
railroad yards and freight stations.
WPC 0663P
EXHIBIT 'A' PCA-84-2
Proposed revision to Section 19.46.040
19.46.020 Permitted uses.
Permitted uses in an I zone are as follows:
A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale, or
storage uses except as hereinafter modified;
B. Automobile and metal appliance manufacturing and assembly,
structural steel fabricating shops, machine shops, ~6~//~t~
f~I~;
C~ Brick or pottery manufacturing; stone or monument works;
D~ ~1I~6~//~/~/~/~//~/~ ~rucking yards,
terminals, and distributing operations;
~ Electrical generating plants and liquified natural gas plants;
F~ Temporary tract signs, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.320 and Section 19.60.470;*
G~ Any other use which is determined by the commission to be of the
same general character as the above uses.
*Editorial note: This section amended to conform with provisions of Ord.
1575, 1974.
19.46.040 Conditional uses.
Conditional uses in an I district include:
A. Motels;
B. Restaurants;
C. Service stations, subject to ~h_ provisions ~f Section ~ ~
D. The retail sale of sucV~ b~lky ~ems as furniture, carpets
~ other similar items;
E. Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which
-- require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of
merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse-type sale of goods
and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of
existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers'
outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the
establishment of retail commercial uses, covered by the
provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the City
Council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon
from the Planning Commission.
F. The following uses covered by this subsection, shall be
'considered by the City Council subsequent to its receipt of
recommendations thereon from the Planning Commission:
1. Brewing or distilling of liquors, or perfume
manufacture;
2. Meat ~
3I. Large scale bleaching, cleaning and dyein~
establishments;
4. Railroad yards and freight stations;
I~. Forges and Foundries.
6__~. Automobile salvage and wrecking operations, and
industrial metal and waste rag, glass or paper salvage
operations, provided that all operations are conducted
within a solid screen not less than eight feet high,
and that materials stored are not piled higher than
said screen.
G. Any other use which is determined by the commission to be
of the same general character as the above uses;
H~. Unclassified uses, as provided in Chapter 19.54;
19.46.041 Prohibited uses and processes
Prohibited uses in the I zone include:
A_.~. Any of the following manufacturing uses, involving primary
production of the following products from raw materials, such as:
1. Asphalt, cement, charcoal and fuel briquettes,
Aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose,
chlorine, carbon black and bone black, creosote, hydrogen
and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates of an explosive
nature, potash, plastic materials and synthetic resins,
p~roxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, nitric,
phosphoric, picric and sulphuric acids,
3~. Coal, coke and tar products, manufacturing of explosives,
fertilizers, gelatin, animal glue and size,
4. Turpentine, matches, paint,
~.. Rubber and soaps,
~.. Grain milling,
7. The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other
materials; magnesium foundry; reduction, refining, smeltin9
and alloying of metal or metal ores; products such as
gasoline, kerosene, naptha, lubricating oil; distillation
of wood or bones; storage, curing or tanning of raw, green
or salted hides or skins,
8~. Stockyards and slauQhterhouses, except as allowed elsewhere
in this title, and slag piles,
9~. Storage of fireworks or explosives, except where incidental
to a permitted use.
/Y/ Deletions
Additions
WPC 0663P
111~? .. .... _~ ~:~t~ ~:-,~J~r . ..~.,
/~'t
__
LEGEND .:
[~~ General Industrial
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment requiring City Council approval for
uses involving hazardous waste materials
PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-84-18 DATE: February 9, 1984
A. Background
In December 1983 the City Council amended Chapter 19.54, Unclassified uses
requiring Council approval for those uses having a Citywide impact. The
Council also directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Code to require
Council approval for those.uses involving hazardous waste materials.
B. Project Description
Amend the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Chapter 19.46) to read as follows:
19.46.020 Permitted uses.
Permitted uses in an I zone are as follows:
A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale, or
storage uses except as hereinafter modified;
B. Automobile and metal appliance manufacturing and assembly, structural
steel fabricating shops, machine shops, £~/~/£~;
[~ C..~. Brick or pottery manufacturing; stone or monument works;
~ D. ~)~6~//~W~//aJl/d/~i/cjh/d//s/c/a/oi/~l/s/,///~y/uC//~ ~rucking yards,
~ terminals, and distributing operations;
~X E~ Electrical generating plants and liquified natural gas plants;
L city of chula vista planning department ~'~'~
environmental review section
XX F. Temporary tract signs, ~ubject to the provisions of Section
-- 19.58.320 and Section 19.~0.470;*
~ G_~.. Any other use which is determined by the commission to be of the
same general character as the above uses.
*Editorial note: This section amended to conform with provisions of
Ord. 1575, 1974.
19.46.040 Conditional uses.
Conditional uses in an I district include:
'A. Motels;
B. Restaurants;
C. Service stations, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.280;
D. The retail sale of such bulky items as furniture, carpets
-- and other similar items;
~ ~//¢~/~ll~YYo~t~l~l/~t~l~lA~if~¥~l~t~
~ll~ddd/~//a~d/~//~dd/~l/~l~/a/l~l~/e~/£~
~ll~da~td~l~//~d~d{/£1/~6~l/~/l~l/d~lA/l~6~//~d~i~j~d~/£~
A~I~I~III~2~III~t~III~t~t~III~Zl~III~.~
~11~11~11~11~11~11~
~l~t~//~//~//~dq~d//~d~d~dJ//~6~//~l~
~tl~ll/~//~$~/lk~ll/~d~f~X{//t~
~ ~ ~ ~/ / ~~/ / /~J / /~ ~ / / ~ I ~ / /
~t~/ / }~ / ~/~AJ~ / /~d~d~ ~d~ { / / t~ ~
~/ / /~d / / ~ ll ~ ~ ~l l Wl / /,~d~ / l ~l l / NdV~ / / ~t~.~
t~i~III~th~NII~th~III~III~III~hI~
~6b2//d~/H~d~/~t~//~//d~/~y/~//t~
~ ~t~//~//~~d~W//d~dd~//~//A~h~
~ ~t~//b~//Z~b~//~//Id~d~d~///~K~//h~t~
~l~Nbl~d~l~IN~r~l~t~lldd~l~ll~¥~l~
~ ~I ~ ~I i l I~N I ~ I ~I~IV~I~ I ~t ~N I~¢ I ~i i ~ ~ ~
E~ Retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets which
require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of
merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse-type sale of goods
and, retail uses which are related to, and supportive of
existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers'
outlets. Conditional use permit applications for the
establishment of retail commercial uses, covered by the
provisions of this subsection, shall be considered by the City
Council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon
from the Planning Commission.
F. The following uses covered by this subsection, shall b~
considered by the City Council subsequent to its receipt ~f
recommendations thereon from the ?lannin~ Commission:
1. Brewing or distillin~ of liquors, or perfum~
manufacture;
2. ~~
~. Large s~al~ bleaching, cleaning and dyein~
~ ~stab~ishments; ~-
4. Railroa~yards and freiqht stations;
~ F-O-F~ all ,-oun rles.
6_~.. Automobile salvage and wrecking operations, and
industrial metal ah~ waste ra~, ~ass or pa~6r ~val-~.qe
operations, provided that all operations ~fe conduc-F~'~
w~thin a solid screen h6F-tess than eiqht feet hi~h~
and tha~ mate-rials stored are not p~d higher tf~an
§aid______~screen. -
G_.~ Any other u~e which is determined by the commission to be
of the same general character ~s the above uses;
H_.~. Unclassified uses, as provided in Chapter 19.54;
19.46.061 Prohibited uses and processes
ProhibiteJ uses in the I zone include:
A.I~. Any of the. Follo~]_i~anufacturin~ uses, invo~!q~ primary
produatio,~ O~ ~}i~ F~Tl-o~c-E~-'F~-o~ F~-~ ma-~-{-6-Fi~ls, s~ ~-
l__~. Asphalt, cement, charcoal and fuel briquettes,
2. Aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic sodas cellulose,
-- -chlorine, ~arBon black and Bone ~lack, creosote, hydr6ge~
~ 0~65, industrial al~Oh61~ ni~r~tes bf an Yxplosiv~
haEure, potash, plastic matehlals 'and synthetic resins,
p~roxYlin, fa~on yarh, and hydrochlOri~i nitric,
~hoSm°hori~, picri¢ anc[sulphuric acids,
3. coa~, ~o~e and tar Products~ ~anufacturin9 of explosives,
fertilizers, ~61a~in, a~iM~l 91~e ~d size,
4. Turpentine, m~ches, paint,
~. R~ber and soaps,
~.. Grain mflling, .
~. Th~ followin~ processes, nitrating of cotton or other
~ ~a~erials; ~a~nesium foundry; reduction, refining, smeltinq
~d all6~in9 6f metal or metal ores~- products such as
gasoline, kerosenei nap~h~ lUbricating Oil; distillation
6~ ~ood or bonesi storage-~ c~fin9 or tannin9 of fab, green
or salted hides or s~ins,
8__~. Stockyards and STau~htefhouses, except as allowed elsewhere
in this tiEle, and sla9 piles,
9_~. S-t~rage of fireworks or ~ipl6sives, except where incidental
to a permitted use.
/// Deletions
Additions
C. CompatibilitS with Zoni~ and Plans
The proposed project is compatible with the Zoning Ordinance and is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
F. ~_indin~s of Insignificant Impa~
1. The project involves a zoning text amendmenq and is not site
specific; therefore, no natural or manmade resources will be
affected. Each proposed project considered under these provisions
will be subject to additional environmental review.
2. The proposed amendment is not at variance with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan and short-term goals will not be
achieved to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. There are no impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to
create a substantial cumulative impact on the environment.
4. The zoning text amendment is to assure that no hazards to human
beings will result from land uses involved in the use of hazardous
waste materials.
G. Consultation
1. ~ndividuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer
Ted Monsell, Fire Department
Tom Dyke, Building Department
2. Documents
IS-SI-17, ZTA allowing retail in I or I-L zone.
Chapter 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
~C 0175P
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
EH 6 (Rev. 12/82)