Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/10/14 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 14, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER ~.INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. Modification to CEQA Findings: Bonita Long Canyon Estates EIR-79-2A (Continued) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10 Montgomery Specific Plan Parts One and Two 3. Report on Proposed Open Space District No. 16 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-2 Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to include small family day care as a permitted use in single family dwellings in the R-2 zone - City Initiated DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of October 21, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of October 14, 1987 1. Modification to CEQA Findings: Bonita Long Canyon Estates EIR-79-2A ~Continued~ A. BACKGROUND At the September 23, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, this item was continued for more information regarding the drainage improvements under and near Central Avenue. (9/28/87 staff report attached) B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached revisions to the CEQA Findings EIR-79-2A) on the Bonita Long Canyon Estates project. C. EIR CONCLUSIONS This drainage, which passes under Central Avenue, s within the Sunnyside drainage basin. Only a small portion of the Bonita Long Canyon project is within this basin. This results in an increase of 0.8% of the basin wide runoff due to development of the Bonita Long Canyon project. There- fore, the final EIR concluded that there would be no significant impact due to this project but rather a subregional cumulative impact on inadequate drainage facilities. Under these conditions, no specific mitigation measures were proposed and only minor references to the Sunnyside basin were made in the CEQA findings. D. COUNTY REQUIREMENTS The Public Works Department of the County of San Diego is requiring that the developer extend the existing drainage facility under the interim road. When the road is widened to four lanes, two 9 ft. x 12 ft. culverts will be constructed under the road and other improvements made. This would be financed through County flood control fees and City Facility Benefit Assessments or by the developer with reimbursement by those funding sources. In any event, the provision that the ADT cannot exceed 8,000 without widening to the full four lanes provides encouragement to build the road and, there- fore, the drainage facility. This is because without the widening of Central Avenue to four lanes no building permits in Bonita Long Canyon will be issued. The current ADT is about 6,600 and, therefore, traffic from about 140 homes will increase the ADT to 8,000. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 23, 1987 Page 1 2~ Modification to CEQA Findings: Bonita Long Canyon Estates EIR-79-2-A A. Background In April of 1981, the City adopted CEQA findings for the Bonita Long Canyon project. The traffic study on the project assumed that East "H" Street would not be extended from 1-805 to Otay Lakes Road. The applicant has requested consideration of the fact that East "H" Street has been extended from 1-805 to the project. B. Recommendation Adopt the attached revisions to the CEQA findings (EIR-79-2-A) on the Bonita Long Canyon Equestrian Estates project. C. Analysis Since the preparation of the environmental documents for this project, East "H" Street has been extended in a two to four lane configuration to serve this and other projects and is now being widened to six lanes from Terra Nova to Otay Lakes Road. The CEQA findings for the project were based on the old traffic study without this link. Under the previous assumptions many of the trips generated by the project were assigned northerly along Corral Canyon,Road and Central Avenue to Bonita Road. This resulted in mitigation measures designed to increase the capacity of these roads. The project proponent has submitted a request, supported with a traffic report, to re-evaluate the level of improvements required on Central Avenue to serve this project. The Engineering Department has reviewed the study and the request and concurs that conditions of approval regarding units of development should be modified to reflect current requirements to serve this development. The proponent is being required to widen Central Avenue to provide 36' of pavement, improve the intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue and install a signal at Central Avenue and Carrol Canyon Road. In addition, to meet the intent of Council and provide adequate traffic facilities for the Bonita Long Canyon Project, the capacity of Central Avenue should not be exceeded; therefore, it is proposed that the Development Agreement be amended to state that building permits will not be issued if the ADT on Central Avenue exceeds 8,000 or the facility be widened to four lanes. wPC 4331P EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1987 2. MODIFICATION TO CEQA FINDINGS: BONITA LONG CANYON ESTATES EIR-79-2-A Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated that when the CEQA Findings were adopted in April, 1981, it was assumed that East "H" Street would not be widened to a full six lanes before the original Phase III of the project and a mitigation measure of widening Central Avenue to four lanes was proposed. These mitigation measures within the original CEQA Findings now need modification to reflect the current situation. Mr. Reid pointed out that the reference to Phase IV had been inadvertently crossed-out in the draft modification presented and that only the southerly side of Central Avenue would be widened to 36 feet not the entire road. In reply to a series of questions from Commissioner Cannon, Coordinator Reid explained that the anticipated Central Avenue road expansion had occasioned the proposed condemnation of the 18 homes prior to the development of the old Phase IV. The geographical locations and the land use changes of the original seven phases has made the reference to the phases in the original EIR and CEQA Findings no longer valid. Commissioner Cannon expressed his concern that the original CEQA Findings had called for flood-control channelization on Central Avenue (which acts as a dam to Central Creek); however, no provision for that issue was indicated in the revised CEQA Findings. When the original CEQA Findings had been submitted, flood channelization had been included to provide relief from the constant flooding. He questioned if the flood-control stabilization provision was being by-passed by the elimination of the original requirement for widening Central to four lanes; and asked for assurance that the alteration of the street width would not alter the requirement for construction of the drainage control facilities included in the original CEQA Findings. Staff replied that the section of the CEQA Findings proposed for modification involved only the traffic section; no plans had yet been submitted for any improve- ments along Central Avenue; the road is not being made smaller because the 36 feet of roadway to the south of the centerline is in addition to approximately 28 feet already located on the north side equating to the standard overall width of 64 feet; the length of the proposed drainage facility to accommodate a wider road would be affected but the capacity would remain the same; the Findings stated only that a drainage facility would be provided to handle the capacity with the final design subject to the approval of the City Engineer; and whatever drainage work was required to be modified because of the street improvements would be modified. In response to a request from the floor, Chairman Carson (with concurrence of the Commission members) invited Mr. Elliott to the podium. Ed Elliott, Vice President of Development Engineering, McMillin Development, Inc., 2727 Hoover Street, National City, representing Bonita Long Canyon Partner- ship, said that the Findings in the 1979 EIR (certified in 1981) addressed the basins on site for drainage but did not relate directly to the Central Avenue drainage as mentioned by Commissioner Cannon. He pointed out that the design would be proceeding through the County of San Diego and not the City of Chula Vista; that his purpose is to address the 36-foot widening issue on Central Avenue, -2- the signalization at Corral Canyon and Bonita Road and the Central Avenue improvements. To date, all discussions concerning the enlargement of the 28-foot wide road to 36 feet plus a 5-foot walk had been relative to traffic. The drain- age issue has not been addressed yet by the County but may be the topic of another modification and can be looked into. Mr. Elliott also pointed out that the connection of Corral Canyon to "H" Street (the reference to which had inadvertently been crossed out in the draft modification) had been completed and officially accepted and is now tied to Phase IV and not the previous (original) Phase III. Commissioner Fuller indicated that the letter received from Mr. Bankston indicated a substantial flood-control problem and that the action to complete the planned widening would most likely trigger the need of an EIR and inquired if this would necessitate a new EIR. Coordinator Reid replied that any focused report on one or two issues would be in the form of a supplement or addendum to the original document and, it was his opinion, that Mr. Bankston was referring to the problem of relocation of the residents and acquisition of the property. Mr. Reid then proposed that the drainage section of the Findings be reviewed by staff and returned to the Commission at the meeting of October 14th for con- sideration of any needed modifications. Commissioner Cannon remarked that he would not be present on October 14; however, there was no question in his mind that the road needed to be narrower to avoid unnecessary condemnation of the 18 homes and that the flood-control channeli- zation issue needed to be addressed (although he was uncertain if this was or was not the proper time). MSUC (Cannon/Fuller) 5-0 to continue this item to the meeting of October 14, 1987. MODIFICATION TO ~ BONITA LONG CANYON EQUESTRIAN ESTATES EIR-79-2(A) CEQA FINDINGS Section C.lO. of the "CEQA Findings" for Bonita Long Canyon Equestrian Estates, EIR-79-2(A) is modified as follows: 10. Traffic The~ project could have a significant impact on street or intersection capacities in the vicinity of the project. The following mitigation measure, tied to each phase of the project, are necessary to avoid any significant impact. Phase I East "H" Street shall be extended from Rutgers westerly to Otay Lakes Road. Otay Lakes Road shall be widened to four travel lanes between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. - Via Hacienda and Canyon Drive shall be extended to Otay Lakes Road. Phase III Phase IV t ~ll~l~l~lll~l~l~l~l~l~l~Z - A 36' roadway and a 5' sidewalk on the south side shall be provided on Central Avenue from Bonita Road to Corral Canyon. - The intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue shall be widened to provide dual left-turn lanes for westbound Central Avenue and create or improve separate right-turn lanes for each of the other three approaches to the intersection. - The intersection of Central Avenue and Corral Canyon Road shall be signalized. A condition will be added to the Development Agreement that when the traffic on Central Avenue between Corral Canyon Road and Belle Brae Road reaches 8,00u Average Daily Trips (ADT), building pe~its will not be issued until Centra~ Avenue is widened to four lanes to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista Director of Public Works and the County Department of Public Works. Finding Subject to the inclusion of the above noted mitigation measures in the project or their implementation prior to an appropriate phase of the project, the project will not have a significant traffic impact on street service levels. ~t~ l ~l Nd l ~/ l~~ / ~dt~ l A~ /~dffYd l ~l l~ l ~%Y~ ~ / ~ l~ wPC 4325P August 4, 1987 To: Tom Harron, City Attorney From: Tom Garibay, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering Subject: Bonita Long Canyon Units 4-7, Development Agreement The City of Chula Vista's letter of June 26, 1987 to John Heck, Attorney at .Law, regarding Bonita Long Canyon should be revised as follows: /1) Paragraph 5 should be deleted. /2) A new condition should be added to require the improvement of Central Avenue. It should read that the recommendations contained in the June 23, 1987 letter to Ken Baumgartner from Kenneth M. Bankston lattached) regarding improvements on Central Avegue should be~ complied with, specifically the following improvements shall be secured with Unit #4 and commence construction within one year of the recordation of the final map: la) A 36' roadway and a 5' sidewalk on the south side shall be provided on Central Avenue from Bonita Road to Corral Canyon. lb) The intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue shall be widened to provide dual left-turn lanes for west-bound Central Avenue and create or improve separate right-turn lanes for each of the other three approaches to the'intersection. lc) The intersection of Central Avenue and Corral Canyon Road shall be signalized. 3. There should be a condition added to the Development A§reement that when the traffic on Central Avenue between Corral Canyon Road & Belle Brae Road reaches 8,000 Average Daily Trips IADT), building permits will not be issued until Central Avenue is widened to four lanes to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista Director of Public Works and the County Department of Public Works. TG:av/ljr xc: Ed Elliott, McMillin Development Co. Dave Solomon, County of San Diego (B28:UNITS4-7.AGR) August 17 1987 'Mz'. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: Modification of CEQA Findings, EIR - 79-2-A Bonita Long Canyon Estates - Page 8, Para. 10 Traffic Phase III City Council Certification of EIR - 79-2-A, Resolution #10468 Dear Mr. Reid: The conditions as stated in the referenced CEQA Findings have been reviewed for modification. The County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department have now prepared new recommendations for Central Avenue as shown in the attached memo from Mr. Garibay to Mr. Harron for the Bonita Long Canyon Units 4-7 Development Agreement. It is requested that procedures be initiated to modify the Certified CEQA Findings to conform to the new recommendations established by engineering. The new recommendations will replace the present Phase 3 requirements by reducing the four lane configuration through mitigating measures as shown in Mr. Garibay's August 4th memo under items 2 (a), (b) and (c). Additional mitigating measures are imposed by paragraph 3 of Mr. Garibay's memo. We have reviewed your suggestion relating to the preparation of an Addendum to the above referenced EIR. We concur that the incorporation of the new traffic study, as additional information, is necessary for the modifiation of the findings. If we may be of further assistance, please contact me at 477-4117. Yours truly, ~d Elliott Senior Vice President Development Engineering cc. Ken Baumgartner 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, Califorma 920509973 (619) 477-4117 2820 Derby Street, Berkeley. CA 94705 Telephone: (415) 843-9746 June 23, 1987 Mr. Kenneth Baumgartner Acquisition and Development Planning Mc Millin Development, Inc. .2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Bonita Long Canyon/ Central Avenue Dear Mr. Baumgartner, As requdested, KMBA ha~ analyzed the Central Avenue corridor between Bonita Road and Corral Canyon Road with consideration given to near term traffic demands as well as existing conditions related to vehicle and pedestrian operations and safety. Backqround Central Avenue between Bonita Road and just west of Dawsonia Street is presently built out to a 64 foot curb to curb width. With some exceptions, Central Avenue is a very substandard 30 foot wide street between Da~sonia Street and Corral Canyon Road. The exceptions are that one half of the planned 64 foot section is built over short sections. See Attachment 1 ( map of Central Avenue ). An even worse condition exists at the culvert at Station 12+70 (see Attachment 1) where the culvert headwalls narrow the roadway width to 28 feet. The general narrowness of the roadway prohibits on-street parking. No sidewalks exist along Central Avenue. between Dawsonia Street and Corral Canyon Road even though there is an elementary school north of Central Avenue at Belle Bonnie Brae. A crosswalk is in place at Belle Bonnie Brae. Existing and projected traffic in this corridor is the same at 6,600 ADT. With the proposed opening of Corral Canyon Road between Central Avenue and East "H" Street, it is expected that aproximately 1680 ADT will be added to Central Avenue in this corridor but that about the same amount of traffic would shift from this corridor to East "H" Street via Corral Canyon Road. The intersections at either end of the corridor are in need of improvements now. The intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue is signalized but with existing traffic, operates at Level of Service (LOS) "E" in the AM Peak Hour and "D" in the PM Peak Hour. See Attachments 2 and 3. Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Consultants Page Two Mr. Baumgartner June 23, 1987 The intersection of Central Avenue and Corral Canyon Road is unsignalized with a poor sight distance condition for northbound Corral Canyon Road drivers versus westbound Central Avenue drivers. Traffic counts used in the LOS analysis were obtained from the firm of JHK Associates, consultants who performed the Sweetwater Valley Traffic Study for the City of Chula Vista. While it is apparent that the County of San Diego plans to achieve, over time, a 64 foot width for Central Avenue in this corridor, the socia~ and economic costs of continuing with this plan will be great. To complete the planned widening, 10 to 12 existing homes would have to be removed, most of which would involve condemnation proceedings and relocation of residents. This action would most likely trigger the need for an Enviornmental Impact Report. In addition, a substantial flood control problem exists in the corridor which will affect the overall feasibility of widening to the 64 foot width given other physical constraints. With the above problemens and constraints in mind the following interim improvements are recommended: 1. Keeping the existing AC Dike in place along the north edge of Central Avenue, create by widening southward, a 36 foot wide roadway and a 5 foot sidewalk on the south edge. See Attachment 1. 2. At the intersection of Bonita Road and Central Avenue perform minor widening to provide dual left turns for westbound Central and create or improve separate right turn lanes at each of the other three approaches to the intersection. These changes will improve LOS to "C" in both the AM and PM Peak Hours. See Attachments 4 And 5. 3. Signalize the intersection of Central Avenue and Corral Canyon Road. Signalization will correct the sight distance problem and a safer pedestrian crossing. Sincerely, enneth M. Bankston, P.E. T316 CE13846 ~ /Attachments CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE C'ITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. BONITA LONG CANYON PARTNERSHIP A California General Partnership, composed of Home Capital Corporation, a California Corporation and McMil]in Develnpment~ Tnc.~ a California Corporation List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. BONITA LONG CANYON PARTNERSHIP Same a~ Above 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest i~ the partnership. McMILLIN DEVELOPMENT, INC. HOME CAPITAL CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~~~ Signature of applicant/date By: Ed Elliott WPC 070]P Vice President, Development Engineerl A-llO Print or type name of applicant McMillin Development, Inc. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 14, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan This staff report and attachments were delivered to you on September 24, 1987 for your early review. September 24, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission VIA: George Krempl, Planning Director ~ FROM: Bill Heiter, Contract Senior Planner Enclosed please find the Planning Commission staff report on the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan, which we are sending to you in advance for your review. This item is to be considered at your October 14, 1987 meeting. /je Enclosures City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 14, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND 1. The territory known as Montgomery was annexed to the City of Chula Vista on December 31, 1985. After determining that the area needed more detailed land use planning guidance, the City Council directed that a specific plan be prepared for the Montgomery Community. Accordingly, a work program was prepared which divided the project into three major parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, principles, and planning and design proposals. Part Three sets forth the implementation proposals and the conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The work program calls for a public review upon the completion of each major part of the specific plan project. This review will be accomplished by public hearings conducted consecutively by the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission, and City Council. 2. Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan have been completed and are submitted for public review. 3. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered Parts One and Two at its public hearing of September 2, 1987. The Committee approved Parts One and Two by a 5-0 vote, and recommended that said Parts One and Two be adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council (minutes attached). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that adoption of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-O4M. 2. Adopt a motion approving Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan and recommending that the City Council adopt such. c. A)JALYSIS 1. Part One of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan consists of three sections. Section I, the Introduction and City Planning Survey, narrates the planning history of the Montgomery Community and presents an overview of the specific plan. Details of the planning and development of Montgomery's five sub-communities of Castle Park, Otay, Harborside, West Fairfield, Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park, and Broderick Acres are discussed. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 14, 1987 Page 2 Section II, the Evaluation, presents the findings of an intensive parcel-by-parcel land use field survey, and the statistics relating to present land use and general economic conditions. Furthermore, visual and functional development patterns and the basic needs of the community are analyzed for both Montgomery at-large, and on a sub-community basis. Section III, the Trends, Analysis and Forecasts, identifies trends as well as forecasting residential, commercial, and industrial development. Furthermore, it contains forecasts of growth, development, and conservation. 2. Part Two of the ~ontgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, ~nd primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. The goals, objectives, statements of policy, principles, and design proposals of Part Two constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. In short, Part Two--called the Summary--is the heart of the Specific Plan. It constitutes the "Plan Proper," or the blueprint for the improvement and projection of the urban pattern of Montgomery. Part Two, upon adoption by the City Council, will become a constituent component of the Chula Vista General Plan. D. CONCLUSION According to the principles of planning, a city plan is composed of three elements--the Survey, the Plan, and the Implementation Program. The Montgomery Specific Plan follows this format. Part One, the Survey is the basis for the plan proper. It documents a large amount of detailed information relative to historical development, existing conditions, and future of the Montgomery Community. Part Two, the Plan, embodies the specific plans, goals, objectives, statements of policies, and planning and design proposals. Part Three, the Implementation Program, will contain the regulations and implementation program to effectuate the Plan. It will be prepared subsequent to the adoption of Parts One and T~.~o. Although it is fashionable to categorize present-day general plans or specific plan~s as "goals plans," "policy plans," or even "strategic plans," the Ilontgomery Specific Plan cannot be readily categorized as either. It is actually a combination of a goals, policy, and regulatory plan, characterized by a cardinal emphasis upon pragmatic, organic proposals which address the changing, built-up environment. These proposals are the essence of the plan, and provide a bridge between the goals, objectives, et cetera and the regulatory framework and provisions of Part Three, which will be submitted for public scrutiny, and hearing, subsequent to the adoption of Parts One and Two. IIPC q307P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of the City of'Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Setting The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L" Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. The subcommunities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield,.Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their'degree .and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown in Exhibit B of this report. Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres (3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within Hontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along Broadway, Hain Street and Third Avenue. ~ city of chula vista planning department £1~YOF environmental review section ( HUtAVIEr^ Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is 100 acres. There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the 'subcommunities~of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to 136 acres or 67% of tWe total. (These figures do not include 151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club for use as a golf course.) Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to constraints, imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands. Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that currently permitted by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. B. Project Description The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for tNe area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery SpecSfic Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon completion of that document. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the con,unity to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of~parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Groundwater/Drainage There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of this report. 1. Telegraph Canyon Creek The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of the Montgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J" Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year floodplain. The channel ization project does not include properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and some areas which are not contained within a channel will continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of, Third Avenue subject to further study) and private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities ~hich~ do not propose permanent structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain designation. In addition, since the special study area requires project specific environmental review to assess potential issues with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. 2. Otay River Valley The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial an~ a small area north of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with industrial buildings under County regulations prior to annexation under development regulations requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage and industrial ~ards, intermixed with residential and commercial uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties. The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County floodplain development regulations so that a permanent development pattern -has already been established. The area south of Main Street is proposed for Research and Industrial land uses subject to special study prior to designation of permanent land uses. The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands determination studies, as well as development of a regional park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding designation pending resolution of complex environmental and jurisOictional land use issues. As such, no adverse · environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social DisplaCement ~ There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del ~iar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.) These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows. 1) Brodericks Otay Acres The area known' as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential streets in combination with the use of private streets and drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single family uses. -6- In May of 19~5, the zoning and General Plan for the County's Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5 net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units have been pemitted no actual approvals and/or construction of apartments have. occurred. The draft ~lontgomery Specific Plan proposes to return the designated land use to single family development with a density of no more than five dwellings per acre. Since the proposeO land use designation is in keeping with the existing land uses present and the circulation system available, and since there are no actual apartments developed within this subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur from this action. 2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open uses within fenced yards. T~ose uses are unsightly by nature and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resultin§ from operation of these businesses. The propose~ land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap -and dismantling ~ operations and restrict development to Research ~nd Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. 3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus point for community civic and commercial activities within the area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street. This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus. Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of commercial land use designations along the east side of Third Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations would take plac~ on properties which are currently residential in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing housing as an indirect result of development according to the plan. However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive studies which address socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning, and traffic issues." The special study area is structured so that commercial development on properties with existing residential uses is precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected. In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to further environmental study and must include these comprehensive studies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposee action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. Transportation/Access Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chie{ amongst these6 suggestions are proposals to widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse environmental impact. Landform/Topography One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~Joodlawn Park, is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further development of thi's area for single family residential uses as outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Given these standar6 development regulations, no significant and adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep topographic conditions at the plan stage. E. Project Modifications Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and whiteland$ designations, no mitigation is required. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas are listed as follows: A. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities ~n conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Transportation/Access The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. Landform/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level wi th attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1) Since the proposed plan affords protraction from premature development within floodplain with the'potential for biologically sensitive areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area. 3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified; there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively conservative. 4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. -10- G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner · Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1987 4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 1987 5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control ana Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152, 060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 15, 1964 7) Sout~ Bay Community PI.an, County of San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista 10) ~nvironmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CITY OF -- environmental review section CHULA VISTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE 7:00 p.m. Lauderbach Community Center Wednesday, September 2, 1987 333 Oxford Street, Chula Vista ROLL CALL PRESENT: Joe A. Berlanga, Tony Castro, Fred Creveling, Robert P. Fox, Nancy Palmer, Ben G. Patton (left at 8:55 p.m.) VACANT POSITION: One STAFF PRESENT: Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner; Frank J. Herrera-A, Assistant Planner; William F. Heiter, Planning Consultant; Edgar Batchelder, Planning Technician 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of August 5, 1987, were approved with the correction of the spelling of Mr. Langmaack's name on pages 2 and 3. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10 - Montgomery Specific Plan Parts One and Two Principal Planner Pass advised that this Draft Montgomery Plan, once adopted, will become part of the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. Part I, which provides the foundation for the plan, was prepared following an extensive survey by City staff members of the economic, social and physical nature of the area, as well as the desires, hopes and dreams of the people of Montgomery. The information gained from the survey was then evaluated and trends analyses were made to determine in which direction the town was going. Based on the evaluation and trends analyses, forecasts were produced which provided the bridge between Part I, the Planning Study or Survey, and Part II, the Plan Proper, and the Policies. These policies, once adopted, will govern the growth, development and conservation of this 3.5 square mile Montgomery community. The first item considered by the Committee were the Goals--the long range, comprehensive, and general aims of the community. Based on these goals, the Committee formulated and adopted objectives--intermediate goals with the added feature of being time measurable. These goals include the removal of blight infestation, reversal of decay and urban decline, improvement of roadways and public facilities. Montgomery Planning Committee -2- September 2, 1987 Based on the goals and objectives, the Committee formulated the policies, which are the rules of the plan. Those policies tell the direction the community is going under the Specific Plan. The Committee then came to the planning principles, which are the fundamental truths. If these truths are not followed, it leads to the decline of the community. These, in the text of the Montgomery Plan, are clearly marked, and spelled out. Finally, the planning and design proposals are based on the policies are usually referred to as suggestions; which is not to demean them because in the Montgomery Plan they are one of the most important segments. These proposals form the bridge to Part III of the Specific Plan, the Implementation Program, which will end up in zoning regulations, urban design standards and guidelines, and special Montgomery measures and provisions for mixed uses, cottage industries and home occupations. In conclusion, Mr. Pass expressed the feeling there is much strength in Montgomery and the achievement of orderly growth, development and conservation is very feasible with the appropriate guidelines. William Heiter, Contract Senior Planner, discussed the proposals contained in Part II of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The proposals are designed to improve and revitalize the Montgomery community; they are specific suggestions but are not rigid or close-ended. Referring to the map which delineates the five sub-communities of the area, he discussed proposals for individual areas. He pointed out areas designated for residential use at varying densities, the commercial activities, industrial land use designations, and the areas of open space or parks. In the residential areas, the proposal is to reduce the density in Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, and the Otay Townsite. This is an effort to accommodate the existing development without increasing the overall density of the plan area. It is proposed to retain the commercial strips which have already been developed, and in some cases to improve and enlarge the areas to make them more serviceable. An important area is the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Center, which is the focus or urban core of Montgomery. This area includes the fire station, the Lauderbach Community Center, the post office, and various commercial activities. It is proposed to construct a major public library in this complex. The Main Street industrial corridor includes a mixture of industrial uses, some of which are incompatible. To upgrade this area, it is proposed to gradually phase out the heavy industrial uses over a period of time and replace them with research and limited industrial uses of a cleaner nature. In some of the areas, the existing conditions would make the normal means of revitalizing the area through individual effort inadequate, and may require a redevelopment program. Under the agreement at the time of annexation, no redevelopment area can be established for four years. Montgomery Planning ~ommittee -3- September 2, 1987 The plan proposes two alternative library sites; one in the Oxford Square Focus and the other at the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Hermosa, which might be combined with a park. The lack of parks in Montgomery is serious and several sites are proposed for consideration as parks. These include the use of the SDG&E right-of-way which extends from Industrial Boulevard to an area east of Hermosa; the Lauderbach Center; the Woodlawn Park Community Center and park; the area called the Telegraph Canyon Creek site, between Third and Fourth Avenues, which might have the potential to be a passive park site. 'The largest area is the Otay River Valley, and the potential to use that for recreation. Mr. Heiter pointed out several areas on the map indicated as Whitelands, which have special development conditions that must be considered. The Otay River Valley is one of those areas and numerous factors must be considered: it is jointly in the jurisdiction of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego, Federal regulations are involved, environmental factors regulated by the State, and private ownership. So any use of the land will take a lot of coordination through a lot of people and public agencies. The other Whitelands area is West Fairfield, which is in the Coastal Zone and has particular problems which will require additional study before reaching a final conclusion on the ultimate land use. Other areas which need special consideration include Faivre Street and the various park and community center sites previously mentioned. ~lr. Heiter stated that the proposals are building blocks and provide the direction for the community to go; they are the bridge between the Goals and Objectives and the third part of the Plan, which is the implementation structure. Committee member Fox commented on the inconsistency for the area of Broderick's Otay Acres, designated on the Chula Vista General Plan as Research and Limited Industrial and on the proposed Montgomery Plan as low density residential. Mr. Pass advised that when the Montgomery Plan is adopted the Chula Vista General Plan will be amended to be consistent in all areas covered by the Montgomery Plan; in Broderick's Acres this will include changes and improvements in the street pattern. Mr. Pass stated that the above presentation concluded the staff's presentation, and that staff would welcome questions from the Committee. Committee member Fox made reference to the City Council Position Papers adopted in September 1985, which he felt had played an important role in the annexation. Included in the Papers was the statement that the City would add one Montgomery member to each of its 12 non-chartered advisory boards and commissions. He asked if this has been done. Montgomery Planning Committee -4- September 2, 1987 Mr. Pass stated that the Council undertook to do this; he could not state if it has been completely fulfilled. He pointed out that this does not come under primarily the purview of planning, and that the proposed Specific Plan addresses issues of land use and circulatory significance. Other political measures must be accomplished through other means. In response to Mr. Fox's request, Mr. Pass affirmed that information with regard to the appointment of Montgomery members would be presented to the Committee at the second meeting of this month. Chairman Palmer opened the public hearing and called on those who had submitted a request to speak. Lynn Parkhurst, representing Montgomery Civic Council, Inc. read into the record a letter unanimously accepted by the directors of the Montgomery Civic Council, Inc. (cop~ placed on file) which stated that the Montgomery Specific Plan is lacking in specifics; it needs commitments, such as cost, a time element, a date, when it will be started and finished, and how it will be funded. It called for immediate action on some of the worst problems in Montgomery--the clean up of junk yards and storage yards which breed crime, better enforcement on the building of apartments to provide adequate area for children to play and cars to park. Immediate action is also needed on the provision of more park land. In addition to the letter, Ms. Pankhurst expressed her personal disagreement with the plan for the area west of I-5 between Palomar and Main, west of Broadway between L and Moss, and the strip between Moss and Naples should be designated for open space. Ms. Pankhurst voiced objection to the approval by the City Council of a traffic light at Orange Avenue and Second. She felt the light should have been at Albany to prowde better safety for residents using that street. William Allen, 1671 Maple Drive, resident of East Woodlawn Park area, expressed support for the plan which he feels will relieve some of the congestion that has built up in the area. He suggested that something should be incorporated into the plan to assure the continued identity of the various sub-communities. He asked if the Montgomery Planning Committee would be retained permanently. Mr. Pass advised that an ordinance in the City Code authorized the City Council to create this Montgomery Planning group and it is considered to be a continuing committee whose function is to promote the orderly growth of this community. He called attention to Goal 4 in Part Two of the Plan, which relates to subcommunity planning and identity in the several established subareas of the Montgomery Community, namely Otay, Castle Park, Harborside, Woodlawn Park, East Woodlawn Park, Broderick's Acres and West Fairfield. Montgomery Planning Committee -5- September 2, 1987 ~,lr. Pass pointed out that all through the preparation and formulation of this plan, several things were stressed: 1) Unity with Chula Vista; 2) Unity without loss of identification of Montgomery; and 3) to recognize that while Montgomery is semi-selfcontained as an identifiable personality, within its own boundaries it has vast changes, as shown by the difference between Woodlawn Park and the Otay Townsite, Broderick'$ Acres, and West Fairfield, and that also must be given special attention. Mr. Pass further explained that this Plan does not embody standards; standards will come in Part Three. The standards are the beginning of zoning regulations and legislative controls. The Goals stated in Part Two are based on principles or fundamental truths; standards implement the principles, which do not change. In response to a further question from Mr. Allen concerning the approval of development plans, Mr. Pass affirmed that this Committee would consider everything that is of a discretionary nature. Mr. Allen stressed that this Committee should have a role in approving all development, even if it meets the criteria of the General Plan. Bill Harter, 1104 Helix, Chula Vista, reported that he owns property on Date Street in the Montgomery area, and expressed concern over the downzoning of Broderick's Acres. He contended that property fronting on Main Street is not suitable for single family homes due to the volume of traffic, and that commercial development should be permitted along that street. He felt that the area should be studied more carefully before a conclusion is reached. Doug Lange, 1693 Sycamore Drive, in the Woodlawn Park area, expressed the belief that all of Main Street should be commercial or industrial development. He felt this small area of 1/4 mile should not be put into residential development, due to the nature of the traffic. Jack Stanley, 330 Roseview Place, Chula Vista, owner of commercial property in Montgomery, said he was encouraged by the proposal to phase out heavy industrial uses over time. He asked what the length of time would be. Chairman Palmer advised that if he does not want the auto wreckers phased out, or wants a more generous time frame, he should make a presentation to the Committee, and also to the Planning Commission and City Council when they consider the Specific Plan. She felt the auto wreckers should put together a solution to the problems and present their views. She asserted there is no better time than now to state their case and to make an impact and to have things changed to accommodate their continued use. Committee member Castro expressed the opinion that the wrecking yards do provide an essential service and they could be figured into the landscape. He felt the problem the Committee has had is not so much the existence of the junk yards, but the disrepair which has resulted in their becoming an eye Montgomery Planning Committee -6- September 2, 1987 sore. He feels that with tasteful landscaping, some of the problems could be mitigated, and something like that could be addressed at the Committee's workshop meetings. Bob Holaday, 7443 Central avenue, Lemon Grove, President of San Diego County Auto Recyclers Association, spoke as a friend of the auto recyclers in the area between Albany and Mace, south of Main Street. He pointed out there is a difference between auto recyclers ~nd junk yards~ and he felt the recyclers in this area are some of San Diego County's more quality auto recyclers. He stated they are not absentee owners, as in the case of much of the commercial and high density development, but are basically family owned and operated businesses. He cited by name a number of the yards that are in that category. Moving to another location is virtually impossible since there is no place in the county where they are welcome. He would like to see them become a viable, compatible part of the community and be allowed to continue. If this requires new regulations dealing with beautification and cleanup, this would be adhered to and they would have no objection to meeting reasonable design standards. When asked about the number of employees in these family owned businesses, Mr. Stanley advised that he had about ten and that Phil's has about 15; many of them long-time employees of l0 to 20 years. Chairman Palmer reiterated her invitation for the auto recyclers to come forward with a suggested change for the plan and for workable solutions to the problems commonly resulting from this type of operation. Joyce Jantz, 616 Crested Butte, Chula Vista spoke on behalf of her neighborhood, Harborside, a small residential community bounded by Moss, Naples, Broadway and I-5. While she is not opposed to the plan, she is concerned over conditions in the area. Despite her opposition, a used car lot has recently been established adjacent to her property. She recently read an article in the newspaper on a ban on proposed card rooms, but the article further stated there is a proposed card room license to be issued on Broadway about two blocks from their residence. She has noted an increase of crime in the area, including prostitution. Businesses in the area include paint and body shops and a massage parlor for breast therapy. She would like some control over the activity of call girls and over the unsightly businesses that exist in the area. Chairman Palmer asked if the question of a card room would not have to come before this Committee. Director of Planning, George Krempl, advised that at last night's City Council meeting, an emergency ordinance to place a moratorium on card rooms in the 14ontgomery area was passed, however, an exemption was granted for someone with an existing cardroom license to transfer the license to another location in the city, including Montgomery, if the individual were willing to go through the procedures currently in effect, i.e., file for a major use permit and meet Montgomery Planning Committee -7- September 2, 1987 all existing city requirements for that use. This would include a public hearing before the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council before a card room could be approved. Paul Kellogg, 660 Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, spoke on behalf of residents at 4067 and 4075 Main Street. He reinforced the statements of Bill Harter and Doug Lange that this property is not suitable for residential development. He commented on the problems of noise and dirt resulting from traffic on Main Street and asked that the properties adjacent to Main Street be changed to light industrial. Shirley Becker, 191 Carver Street, Chula Vista, a resident in the Otay Townsite area, expressed agreement with the letter from the Montgomery Civic Council, Inc., of which she is a member. She also supported the request for a traffic light on Orange Avenue at Albany Street, due to the speed of the traffic on Orange and the poor sight distance afforded at that intersection. Ms. Becker also made reference to a remark about massage, stating that she is a massage technician and resents derogatory remarks about her profession. She has a successful shop in La Jolla, but has been trying to locate in the Chula Vista area, preferably in Montgomery, but has been unable to find a location at which she can afford to start a small business. It would not be a massage parlor; she is a licensed cosmetician, doing facials and skin care and massage for those customers who desire it, but she does not advertise to do massage. Ms. Becker made reference to page 17 in Part Two of the Plan, in Section C, which refers to development to produce well-ordered, low and moderate income housing. She pointed out there is low and moderate income housing in the Otay area. She commented on the apartments at Fourth and Palomar where there is not enough parking for the people who live there. If additional apartments are built she feels the streets will not handle the traffic that comes from them. She raised objection to the closing of Banner Street due to the construction of Orange Avenue after it has been in use for 26 years. Committee member Castro asked if the massage profession has a national organization, to which the Committee could make inquiry if someone wants a massage establishment. Ms. Becker advised that she received her training and certification through Mueller College in San Diego, which offers a course for health practitioners that takes over 1,000 hours to qualify. The meeting recessed at 8:55 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Edward Wood, representing Glenview Towing, located at 140 Center Street, reported that although they are in the midst of wrecking yards, they are not a wrecking yard and do not sell parts. They provide a valuable service to the community as a staging area for cars which have been abandoned on the streets, and cars seized at the border by the U. S. Customs. To redeem a vehicle the Montgomery Planning Committee -8- September 2, 1987 owner must have the proper documents and pay the storage fee. If that is not done, eventually the United States takes title to the car and holds auctions to get rid of it. Glenview Towing also serves the Chula Vista Police Department, six days a month, on a rotating basis with other yards, taking cars that have been impounded for unpaid license fees or expired driver's license, or that have been damaged in an accident and the driver is incapacitated; it may also include recovered stolen cars. In six days, they bring in an average of 30 to 40 cars, and about half of those leave within a week. Mr. Wood invited the Committee to visit and inspect their lot, which is kept clean and neat; all cars, including their own trucks are kept behind locked gates, and none are left on the street. Gerald Fries, 17 Angela Lane, Chula Vista, representing his own company, Action Auto Dismantlers, Inc., on Center Street, pointed out the need for recycling used parts, without which many people could not afford to fix their cars. He pointed out that every city generates cars that are no longer usable and every city should have a place to process and get rid of those cars. He expressed his desire to make his business acceptable to the public and asked for any comments on what would make it acceptable. C. H. Murfeld, 815 Ada Street, Chula Vista, expressed his feeling that the Fairfield area, east of I-5, is being islandized and downgraded. He objected to having the density lowered to 3-5 units per acre. He pointed out there are duplexes and multiple units on Dorothy Street and on Ada Street and he felt the area should retain the density presently assigned. Principal Planner Pass explained that this Specific Plan does not reclassify land from one zone to another, but does bridge over to the implementation program which begins to set guidelines for zoning proposals. All land owners cannot expect to develop their property at the highest density shown on the General Plan, and each parcel must be considered based on its size and the use it can best accommodate. Some lots may be suitable for subdividing for single family homes and other lots may accommodate duplexes. Gordon Howe, 835 Ada Street, Chula Vista, a property owner in the Fairfield area east of the freeway, questioned lowering the density, noting the adjacent industrial area and trailer parks, also asserting that the heavy truck traffic on Frontage Road make property fronting on that street unsuitable for single family residence. Ne also pointed out the need for storage lots in residential areas to provide for a place for motorhomes, boats, three-wheelers, and suggested that his lot on Frontage Road would be suitable for that. Jim Abraham, 798 Dorothy, Chula Vista, property owner in Fairfield, cited the poor quality of development that has occurred, including move-ons, and felt those with undeveloped land will be deprived of an opportunity by the lower density designation. r~ontgomery Planning Committee -9- September 2, 1987 Discussion followed concerning the process of rezoning property and its ultimate development; a process that includes notification of all owners and adjacent residents of public hearings before this Committee, the City Planning Commission and City Council. Addressing the question of density, Mr. Pass pointed out that the survey led to an understanding that the area was too dense; there were too many apartment houses and low-cost housing projects. Based on'the general feeling that home ownership, lower residential textures, and the restoration of single-family dwellings as the backbone of the community should be fostered, this proposal scales back densities. It is also proposed that there be no more increasing of the strip commercial, since over-commercializing has led to marginal uses and a large vacancy rate. He stated that the speakers at the public hearing are both correct and perceptive in knowing that the fundamentals of this plan are scaling down residential density, promoting home ownership, curbing the expansion of commercial, and upgrading the type of industrial use. Mr. Pass, in addressing the question of density pointed out that Part One of the Draft Plan, the Survey, indicated that Montgomery was being developed with too many apartment houses, and was losing its suburban identify and character. He further noted that the Survey clearly expresses the residents' feeling that home ownership, lower residential textures, and the restoration of the single-family dwelling as the backbone of the community are essential. He further observed that the Survey provides much evidence that Mont§omery is commercially overzoned, and that the extension of its commercial strips would be inadvisable, and would probably lead to the creation of more commercial vacancies and marginal uses. He conceded that every community needs land fills, auto recycling works, and junk yards, but noted that for 50 years, Montgomery has been taking more than its fair share of such uses and that it was time that other cities accept their fair share. As no one el se wished to speak, Chairman Palmer closed the public hearing. She noted there are two actions to be taken; these are on the Draft Specific Plan. Revisions will be made based upon suggestions presented in this hearing and there will be a public hearing on the Final Specific Plan. MSUC (Fox/Creveling) to find that there is no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-84-04M. MSUC (Fox/Berlanga) to approve Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan and recommend that the City Planning Commission and City Council adopt such. In speaking to the motion, Member Fox expressed his whole-hearted support for the plan, and pointed out the necessity of planning to avoid the conditions that presently exist in Montgomery. He noted the problems created by overcrowding, by the mixture of incompatible land uses, over commercializing, and the lack of public parks to adequately serve the population. He expressed Montgomery Planning Committee -10- September 2, 1987 appreciation for the work and effort has gone into preparation of the Specific Plan, and the belief that this is the first and most important step toward the improvement of Montgomery. Chairman Palmer requested that the petition of support from the residents of Broderick's Otay Acres, submitted at the previous meeting, be made part of the official record, and be included with comments on the Draft Specific Plan when it is sent forward. Principal Planner Pass called the Committee's attention to the letter submitted by Mr. Alex Struthers, representative of several property owners in the Broadway Corridor, northerly of Main Street. He noted that the letter recommended that the territory within this corridor be designated "commercial," and not "Research and Limited Industrial," as proposed under the Draft Specific Plan. He requested that Mr. Struthers' letter be made a part of the record. 3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Palmer expressed appreciation to the audience for their input and the manner in which it was given. She assured them that the testimony would be considered. 4. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Member Fox noted the number of people truly interested in the community and encouraged anyone interested in serving to apply for the open position on the Planning Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. to the Workshop and Special Business meeting of September 16, 1987, at 6:30 p.m. at the Public Services Building in the Chula Vista city complex. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN IN GENERAL. IN PARTICU. LAR, WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING RECLASSIFIED TO REFLECT THE SINGLE FAMILY QUALITY OF THE AREA. NAME GNATURE ADDRESS OWNER/ RENTEF WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN IN GENERAL. IN PARTICULAR, WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING RECLASSIFIED TO REFLECT THE SINGLE FAMILY QUALITY OF THE AREA. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS OWNER/ RENTI San Diego Gas & Electric September 25, 1987 The Planning Commission City of Cbula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Subject: MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Montgomery Specific Plan. We support the efforts of the Montgomery Planning Group and the City of Chula Vista to fulfill the land use needs of the Montgomery Community through the planning process. SDG&E has been a member of the Montgomery Community for several years now and hopes to continue to be a welcome member of the community. SDG&E's presence in the Community has primarily been one of service by providing energy to the Community. We also have a physical presence established by the development of a major transmission right of way that crosses the community south of Orange Avenue. For years our rights of way have been sources of parks and open space to the City of Chula Vista. While there have been no parks developed within our rights of way within the community of Montgomery, they have served as a major source of open space and as recreational areas. We expect our rights of way to continue to provide relief from urban development as open space and possibly parks at some future date. We look forward to working with both the City and the community towards these ends. We noted that Montgomery Specific Plan diagram designates our entire right of way as parks and open space with a special study area overlay. We feel the designation is appropriate for portions of our right of way, but we would like to request a reconsideration for other portions. I'm referring to that portion of our right of way that is west of Broadway and a portion east of Broadway but west of the existing residential development. The portion of the right of way that I have described is completely surrounded by either commercial or industrial uses. The areas designated on the specific plan diagram surrounding this portion are also designated as either commercial or industrial. We feel this portion of our right of way would best augment the proposed commercial and industrial uses versus residential uses that would normally be served by parks and open space with residential areas. The Planning Commission -2- September 25, 1987 This is one of the few transmission rights of way that is owned in fee by SDG&E. Fee ownership gives SDG&E the opportunity to lease space for other uses. Sometimes these leases are to public agencies. Much of the city's park space benefits from SDG&E's fee ownership. Sometimes the company leases these rights of ways to comanercial and industrial users creating revenue. Ail revenue realized from such leases are deposited into rate base. This helps reduce rates by producing income and reducing maintenance. It is SDG&E's intent to use these fee owned rights of way to benefit both the communities in which they are located and all of the ratepayers within our service territory whenever possible. Therefore, we are requesting that the portion of the right of way earlier described be designated the same as the adjoining land is designated which is commercial and ~ndustrial. We have no problem with the remainder of our right of way remaining designated as parks and open space. We hope you will see the land use logic in this request and give it favorable consideration. Someone from SDG&E will be represented at the hearing to respond to questions. However, if you have questions before then, I can be reached at 696-2409. Sincerely, Don L. Rose Sr. Licensing Analyst DLR:Jw cc: Montgomery Planning Committee 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dan Paas Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Cbula Vista, CA 92010 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 14, 1987 Page 1 3. ~eport on Proposed Open Space District No. 16 September 24, 1987 File # 0S-017 TO: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~~ 2 ~ ~. FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Open Space District No. 16 A proposed report to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed open space district for Woodland Park Subdivision is given below. I would like to request that this report be submitted to the Planning Commission at their October 14, 1987 meeting. 1. REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 16 A. BACKGROUND On November 3, 1981 the City Council approved the Tentative Map for Chula Vista Tract 82-1 (Woodland Park Subdivision). The subdivision, located in the Woodlawn Park area north of Main Street, consists of 27 residential lots and 5 common area lots. Three of the common area lots, contain slopes created by the grading of the subdivision. These lots, lots C, D and E are to be planted and maintained by homeowners association. In the past, the City has experienced problems with the level of maintenance provided by some homeowners associations. Because the slopes on these three lots are adjacent to public streets and are highly visible {especially the slopes adjacent to Main Street). Staff has anticipated the need to provide for a mechanism whereby the City could step in and take over maintenance if the level of maintenance provided by the association is inadequate. With this consideration in mind, a condition was placed on the approval of the Tentative Map that required the owner to request formation of an open space maintenance district. The City has received said request in a letter dated September 1, lg87 from the Lendel Corporation, owner, of the property. B. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending formation of proposed Open Space Maintenance District No. 16 to the City Council. A public hearing must be held before the City Council before the district can be formed. City Planning Commission - 2 - September 24, 1987 C. DISCUSSION It is staff's intent that the district proposed to be formed be a passive one. The homeowners association would hold title to the lots and would be responsible for maintenance of the slopes. There would be no open space assessments against the property owners unless the City Council determines that the level of maintenance provided by the association is inadequate. At that time, the Council would accept title to the lots {as offered irrevocably on the subdivision map). Once that has occurred, the City would then maintain the lots through open space contracts and the cost of those contracts would be assessed against the property owners. The boundary of the proposed district would be the subdivision boundary of Chula Vista Tract 82-1, Woodland Park Subdivision (see attachment "A"). The total area of the three lots is appoximately 12,350 square feet. All lots will be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with plans approved by the City Landscape Architect. The City estimates that the cost of maintaining the lots through open space contracts would be approximately $4,500.00 per year or $167.00 per year per residential lot (see attachment "B"). All of the open space lots generally conform to the criteria in section 17.08.020C, with the exception that the lots will be maintained by a homeowners' association, providing that said association adequately maintains the lots. CST:ljr {B16:PLANNING.COM) ATTACHMENT "A" · '[~'* ' :, ,~ <z ~, / LOTUs DRIVE ~ I 27 20 2 26 21 3 / ~ 23 22 4 ' LOT A ,, DE REK WAY I SIT-E 1/ICINIT¥ MAP PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 16 CHULA VISTA TRACT! 82-1 WOODLAND PARK Attachment "B" Open Space Maintenance District No. 16 Woodland Park Allocation of Costs Residential Units 100% Total % of % of # of lots Assessment/ Assessment Residential District Residential or units Unit Units Assessment Assessment Single Family Lots 27 1.0 27 100.0 100.0 Total Assessment Residential 27 100.0 Annual Maintenance Costs - Open Space Lots = $4,500.00 Cost Per EDU : $4,500 : $166.67 : Assessment for Single Family Lot Per Year CST:ljr (B12:OSMD.15) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 14, 1987 Page 1 ~ PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-2: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to include small family day care as a permitted use in single family dwellings in the R-~ zone - Deputy City Attorney A. BACKGROUND This item is a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to allow small family day care (day care for six or fewer children, including children who reside at the home) to operate from a single family dwelling in the R-2 zone as a "permitted" rather than "conditional" use. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal Code to permit small family day care in single family dwellings in the R-2 zone as follows: CHAPTER 19.26 R-2 ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE 19.26.040 Conditional Uses D. Small family day care homes, as defined in SEction 19.04.095, if not operating within a single family dwelling. C. DISCUSSION The State of California has declared the regulation of small family day care homes to be of statewide concern preempting local municipalities from regulating this type of use, except as specifically allowed under state law. Cities may place restrictions on the building heights, setbacks and lot dimensions of small family day care facilities as long as these restrictions are identical to those applied to other single family residences. State law strictly prohibits distinguishing small family day care facilities from other single family dwellings. Under the current Chula Vista Municipal Code, a small family day care home operating from a single family residence would be required to obtain a conditional use permit, site plan and architectural approval prior to operating in an R-2 zone. However, other types of single family dwellings located in an R-2 zone would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit, or site plan and architectural approvals. Section 19.26,040D could be read to distinguish small day care centers from single family residences which is strictly prohibited under state law and therefore should be amended. However, we would still be able to regulate small family day care centers who operate out of other types of residences which may require more detailed regulations because of the close proximity to adjoining neighbors. WPC 4365P This s a list of property owners that are interested in havzng Ma~n Street,Chula Vista in ths approximate area of the 3900 and the 4000 block changed to a light industrial