HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/09/26 AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 26, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of July 11, July 25 and August 22, 1990
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. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-B: Request to rezone 0.15 acres located at
245 'E' Street to C-O David F. Wilson and
Ronald D. Cox (continued from 9-12-90)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-P-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain
territory, generally bounded by Main Street to the north,
the southern City boundary to the south, a line approxi-
mately 310 feet west of Date Street to the east, and
Fourth Avenue to the west from their City-adopted County
zone classifications to City classifications utilized
throughout Chula Vista.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-8, Mid-Bayfront
LCP Resubmittal #8 Amendment
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session meeting of October 17, 1990
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-B: Request to rezone 0.15 acre~
located at 245 "E" Street,to C-O - Dav~
F. Wilson and Ronald D. Cox
A. BACKGROUND
This item involves a rezoning of a single lot of 0.15 acres
or 6,534 square feet located at 245 "E" Street, just west of
Twin Oaks Circle. The proposal is to rezone the lot from the
R-i, Single Family Residence Zone, to the C-O, Administrative
and Professional Office Zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed this item
and has found that the requested rezone to be categorically
exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15301,
Class i(N) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Findings in Attachment #1 and the Conditions
and Reasons as stated in this report, adopt a motion
recommending that the City Council approve this rezone,
PCZ-91-B from R-1 to C-O-P..
C. DISCUSSION
The property is presently zoned R-i, Single Family Residence
Zone. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning is as follows:
North: R-1 Single Family Residential
South: R-3 One Story Multiple Family Units
East : R-1 Single Family Residential
West : C-O Commercial Office for Insurance Agency
The subject property is presently improved with a one-story,
1,236 square foot, single family house. The house has access
from "E" Street by an existing 12 foot wide driveway. The
applicants own and operate the adjacent Insurance Agency and
intend to expand their operation into this residence, should
the rezone be approved. It is their intention to use the
existing structure for offices and to expand their present
parking lot onto this property by the addition of 4 parking
spaces to the rear of the house. The existing garage would
be removed so that the driveway could be extended to the rear
for access to the proposed parking area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 12, 1990 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
In considering this request for rezone staff's basic concern
is the incremental expansion of commercial zoning along "E"
Street. All of the lots to the east are zoned and developed
residentially. If this request is approved, it could be
possible for the property owner directly to the east to ask
the city for commercial zoning, and so on. The use of this
property as a residence, however, appears unlikely and
undesirable considering its location on "E" Street and its
proximity to existing commercial establishments.
To eliminate the concerns mentioned above staff has developed
conditions that would be applied to the rezone should it be
approved. Those would require that the lot be consolidated
with the lot to the west, which is currently being used by the
insurance agency. This would encourage a more coordinated
approach to any major structural changes to the site, should
they occur in the future.
Relative to the General Plan, the site appears to be on the
line between the Commercial, Retail designation and
Residential, Low-Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre). The
commercial designation appears to represent the existing land
use and zoning pattern along "E" Street. Because of the scale
of the General Plan and the size of this lot, it is not
possible to clearly identify this lot on the General Plan map.
E. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The "P" Precise Plan Modifying District shall be applied to
this property and the following development guidelines shall
be imposed:
1. Prior to occupancy of the structure at 245 "E" Street a
lot consolidation plat shall be submitted for the
approval of the city.
2. Any building construction on this parcel shall adhere to
the scale of the adjacent residential development.
3. Any use of the property at 245 "E" Street shall maintain
one way access onto "E" Street. This shall be
coordinated with 249 "E" Street to the west.
4. Prior to occupancy of 245 "E" Street, a Landscaping Plan
shall be submitted and approved for the
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990 Page 3
combined parcel. It shall depict a coordinated landscape
concept for the two existing structures. It shall also
depict a landscape buffer adjacent to the residential
lots to the north and east. Said plan shall be approved
by the City Landscape Architect and Landscaping installed
within (30) days of the date of approval..
5. Final Architectural approval will be subject to the
city's design review process
F. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. With the conditions as noted above, this request
represents a logical extension of the commercial zoning
along "E" Street. Specifically, with the requirement
for a lot consolidation plat this site will be merged
with the property to the west, which is currently being
used for commercial purposes.
2. When consolidation occurs, the overall size of the parcel
represents a viable commercial site. The combined site
will exceed 15,000 square feet.
3. Because of the site's location on "E" Street the
property is not a desireable location for a single family
residence. The office use with access to "E" Street
appears to be a more appropriate use of this property
than residential.
ATTACHMENT # 1
FINDINGS FOR THE "P" MODIFYING DISTRICT
1. The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which
the property is located, is unique by virtue of topography,
geological characteristics, access, configuration, traffic
circulation or some social or historic situation requiring
special handling of the development on a precise plan'basis
The property will be combined with an adjacent lot and
business operation. This necessitates careful site planning
to ensure the coordinated development and circulation planning
of the combined operation.
2. The property or area to which the P modifying district is
applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing
different land uses, and the development of a precise plan
will allow the area so designated to coexist between land
usages which might otherwise prove incompatible.
Because of the close proximity to residential uses the
Precise Plan Modifying District allows the addition of
conditions of approval that will focus on site planning,
architectural detail including a scale compatible with the
adjacent residential houses, landscape buffering, and
circulatlon considerations that impact those residences.
Through this mechanism, the property may be developed
commercially in a compatible manner with the existing slngle
family.
3. The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the
property owner and/or the city appropriate control or
flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper
relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones.
The ,,P,, Precise Plan Modifying District provides the mechanism
to condition the project in the ways described above. This
is the most efficient and flexible mechanism available to
provide the necessary site planning detail to ensure
development compatibility with adjacent uses.
TWIN OAKS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
APP~-~'~ANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSUDr
~ ur ~mKmAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
,CO~sSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODI,____._.~ES.
The following information must be disclosed:
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
_David F. & Sandra j.
.Ronald D. & Patti S. Co~
List the names of a~i persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Same
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) a~ve !s.a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than -I0% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
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_x No If yes, please indicate person(s)Greg Co×',David Malcolm,Susan'Fulle
~ is defined as' "Any individ..l
.,uu~,, ~lrm, Copartnership, joint venture, associatl
es a e, re e ver,
this and a n~yy other~ y
{NOLTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)--'>x.
A-1 lO / ,.
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990
PUBLIC HEARING: ~CZ-90-P-M City-initiated proposal to
~ezone certain territory, ~enerall¥ bounded by
Main Street to the north, the southern City
boundary to the south, a line apDroximatel¥ 310
feet west of Date Street to the east, and
Fourth avenue to the west from their City
adoDted County zone classifications to Cit~
~lassifications utilized throuqhout Chul.,
Yista. The ~r~cise territorial limits an,!
proDosed rezonlnqs are depicted on attache~!
~xhibit "A".
A. BACKGROUND
1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Subcommunity
of the Montgomery Specific Plan referred to as Otay Town Part
III. The area is generally bounded by Main Street to the
north, the southern City limits adjacent to the floodway to
the south, Hilltop Drive and a line 310 feet west of Date
Street to the east and Fourth Avenue and Beyer Way to the
west.
Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-
adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those
are as follows:
A. M52, M54 and M58 to I-L-P for the majority of the
area north of the floodplain area.
B. M52 to C-C-P for the lot at the northwest corner of
Third Avenue and Main Street.
C. C36 to C-C-P for the three vacant parcels at the
northeastern corner of Third Avenue and Main Street.
D. A70 - no change proposed - for the area located
within the floodplain area.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial
Study, IS-88-4M and IS-85-65M, of potential environmental
impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Based on that attached Initial Study and comments
thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this
reclassification would cause no significant environmental
impacts as per the previously adopted Negative
Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M.
1
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration, find that this
reclassification will have no significant environmental
impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt
o '
an rdlnance to change the zones as described on the
attached Exhibit "A".
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoninq and land use.
North R-2-P mixed single family and
multi-unit residential
C-C-p commercial
R-1-5-P single and duplex family
residential
I-L utility station, elementary
school, truck parking,
storage buildings,
industrial suites
R-2-T duplexes
R-1 single family dwellings
South A-i-10 vacant/agriculture
FW floodway
R-l-5 single family residential
West M52 mixed residential with
commercial/light
industrial, agriculture
M54 agriculture, vacant land
East RS6 single family residential
C36 vacant, residential
RV15 single family
2
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990
2. Existinq site characteristics
The topography of the area is generally flat with a
slight slope towards the river and floodway in the
southern portions. Although the majority of land area
in Otay Town Part III is being used, there are 22 vacant
parcels and a number of other parcels that are used as
open storage or are otherwise under utilized.
The predominant land use is auto related industrial. Of
the 132 lots total, approximately 50 are involved with
some form of automotive repair, sales or storage.
Included among these are open storage and salvage yards.
Another common land use includes mini- or self-storage
buildings. Miscellaneous office, small appliance repair,
and distribution companies are also present. Other
industrial uses include steel fabrication and iron works,
mirror manufacturing, wood products, and drapery and
upholstery shops. Some non-conforming uses, in addition
to the open salvage and storage yards, include
residences, commercial sales, a bar and a hair salon.
The Main Street corridor is the primary road through the
area. The majority of lots fronting on Main Street are
smaller in size. The uses tend to be more commercial and
office in nature. The majority of non-conforming
residential uses are on the north side of Main Street,
in the western portion of the subcommunity. The auto
salvage and open storage lots are predominately in the
center of the subcommunity.
On the southern corner of Fourth Avenue and Main Street,
there is an existing mini-storage development that is
currently expanding into the vacant adjacent parcel. The
remaining storage uses are concentrated towards the
eastern boundary of Otay Town Part III. The majority
of vacant land, 42.13 acres out of 53.5 acres, is located
in the floodway area in the southerly extension of the
subcommunity. A pocket of single family residential,
which was addressed as part of Otay Town Part I, is found
in the western third of the community, south of Main
Street.
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990
3. S ecific Plan.
The Otay Town Part III Subcommunity Area contains several
Land Use Designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan
(per Exhibit "B"):
Mercantile & Offloe Commercial
This Designation is a991ied to the northwestern and
northeastern corner lots of Third Avenue and Main
Street. The 9rogosed zone amendment is to from M52
(Limited Imgact Industrial) and C36 (General
Commercial) to C-C-P (Central Commercial). There
is a gas station and mini-mart on the western
corner. The eastern corner consists of three vacant
lots. The City zoning of C-C-P is consistent with
the present use of the land and relates to the
commercial zoning and land uses located on Third
Avenue north of Main Street. The ',P,, designator or
Precise Plan Modifying District will require the use
of land and buildings to be in accordance with an
approved precise plan.
Research and Limited Industrial
The majority of land area in Otay Town Part III is
d '
eslgnated Research and Limited Industrial. The
Montgomery Sgecific Plan states that the existing
wrecking yards , junk yards, ogen storage areas,
salvage ogerations and other marginal or heavy
industrial uses should be to a large extent
gradually 9hased out. Cleaner manufacturing,
scientific and light industrial land uses should be
encouraged to replace them.
The progosed zone amendments include M52, M54 and
M58 (County zoning for Light, General and Heavy
Impact Industrial) to I-L-P, Limited Industrial.
The "p,, holds the same precise plan requirement as
discussed above. The proposed zoning is consistent
with the goals and intent of the Montgomery Specific
Plan of preserving the area as a corridor for
research and light industrial uses. The non-
conforming scrap and open storage uses will be
allowed 24 months to be phased out. Other non-
conforming uses will be subject to the non-
conforming section of the City Zoning Ordinance and
generally be allowed to exist but not expand.
4
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 26, 1990
Parks and Open Space/Special Study Area
This designation applies to the southern portions
of Otay Town Part III lying generally within the
floodway and floodplain. I-L-P zoning is proposed
for the area currently zoned by the County as M54
and M52. This proposal is close to a straight
conversion from County to City zones and will allow
development of the area to relate to the remainder
of Otay Town Part III, targeted for light
industrial. The area currently zoned A70 (Limited
Agriculture) is not proposed for a zone change at
this time so that the City may further study the
need and opportunity for an open space and park
system.
D. ANALYSIS
Several factors support the rezonings described above:
1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista
City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone
classifications are primarily proposed to implement that
Specific Plan.
2. The proposed zone classifications for the industrial area
are intended to implement specific goals established for
the Main Street corridor and will allow the development
of the area to move toward cleaner, light industrial uses
more in keeping with research-industrial development.
Existing non-conforming scrap and open storage uses will
be allowed to be phased out over a 24 month period.
3. The deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area will
allow the city to consider the needs of a park or open
space lands in the area of the power line right-of-way.
4. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best
attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to
equivalent City zoning, keeping in mind consistency with
existing land uses, without adversely impacting
development capability of the properties.
a:\otp3pc.rpt
EXCERPT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1990
3. PUBLIC HEDGING: PCZ 90 P ,~ - City-initiated z~roposal to
rezone certain territory, generally
bounded by iIain Street to the :~orth, the
southern City boundary to the south, a
line appro:~iuately 310 feet ~est of Date
Street to the east, and Fourth Avenue to
the west from their City-accosted County
zone classifications to Citv-classifi_~
cations utilized throughout~Chula Vista.
The precise territorial limits and
l~roposed rezonings ar~ depicted on
atccched E~:hibit "A"
.<cn~.{~ and !~a;plomentation Consultant Lettieri introduced
.... oc~a~= PLanner ~a!, c~ his office, to make ~he ~re~entation.
Planner Hay inaicate~ ~hat the Otay ~o~;n Part III Subcommunity
compriges ].D1 acres oounded ]~v ~ain Street uo the north, t~e
~outhern City limits adjacent-to the
~xco~,;a~.~, ~io the so,th,
Hilltop Drive and a line 310 feet ~;est of Date 3treet to the east
end Fou'fth ,]kvenue to the %zest.
The conversion fro:n ~[]e .... ',~' '.,, ' .
u-~l~Cl*,Cu Cic':-acouted Cou.~dy zonzn
City zoning classifications includes:
A. H52, ~q54 and [~58 to I-L-P for the majority of the area north
of the floodplain area.
B. [152 to C-C-P for the lot at the northwest corner of Third
Avenue and Main Street.
C. C36 to C-C-P for the three vacant parcels at the
northeastern corner of Third Avenue and [lain Street.
D. A70 - no change proposed - for the area located within the
floodplain area until further study is made regarding open
space and park system requirements in this area.
These zone classifications are consistent with the [lontgomery
Specific Plan and are the best attempt to convert City-adopted
County zoning to equivalent City zoning.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak the public hearing
was closed.
MSUC that based on the Initial Studies and comments on the
Initial Studies and Negative Declaration, to find that this
reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts
and re-adopt the 1.1egative Declaration issued on IS-88-4i.i and IS-
88-65~! for the Hontgomery Specific Plan [(McFarlin/Paltaer) 6-0].
HSUC to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend adoption
of an ordinance to chang, e the zones as described on th~ attached
Exhibit "A" [ (~cFarlin/Creveling) 6-0].
· - Later in the meeting, staff drew the Chair's attention to a la,e-
comer who had , ~- ~
,;_~hec~ to make a statement reaarding this issue.
In order that his comments might be recorde~ in the
Chair reoT~ened the , us] ~c hearing_.
_.. ~ , .. ~inutes, the
Ronald G. Lockyer, 151 Center Street, Chula Vista, spoke in
opposition to the rcu~oning saying Lhat forcing all industry out
of Iiontgomery would result in a b~droom coIamunity which could not
survive ~inancia~iy.
Chairr.~an Ilheeland then .reclosed the public hearing.
ADDENDUM
IS-88-4M
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PART III
May 6, 1988
1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and
the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that
when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required
unless:
a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due
to tile involvement of new significant environmental impacts not
considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration
in the air quality where the project will be located which will
require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or
c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes
available.
Because the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan has been the subject
of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been
drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of
implementation of the plan, a new initial study (IS-88-~M) was required. It
is the conclusion of the initial study that prior environmental review of the
Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88-4M continues to accurately
assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional
information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III.
Previous Project
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in
effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and
diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a state?hr of the
~J~ionship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General
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 all ow general and heavy industrial activities
to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within
Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for
the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford
Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present
deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed
retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as
property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast
corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic
mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis
of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning
and traffic concerns.
Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known
as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain
for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial
and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research
and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an
area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted.
Proposed Project
Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special
Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and
Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs
land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater
significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would
consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom
tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations
also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines.
Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision
controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts
and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings
called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be
undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review.
-2-
Analxsis
1. Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is
precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and whitelands
designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation is required at this time.
2. Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land
uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site.
Those areas include:
a. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential
densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant
land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy
industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited
Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those
uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the
proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities
offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly
characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no
significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing
established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the
Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since
implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the
requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate
mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
d. Transportation/Access
Both Montgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals
to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area,
chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main
Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue
to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude
implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and
engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no
mitigation is required at this point.
-3-
e. Land Form/Topography
The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. Further development for single
family residences may include significant alteration of existing
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant
environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future
review.
Conclusion
The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified
in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the
Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan
II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the
same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that
the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt
this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the
project.
ENVIR~,IMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 5244P
-4-
negabve declaration
PROJECT NA~4E: 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 Settinq
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 Montgome~ and 71% of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome
acreage.
Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within
Ilontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial
use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along
Broadway, I.lain Street and Third Avenue.
city of chula vista planning department
CI1Y OF
environmental review section CHUL~ VISTA.
Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of
Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of
Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89%
of all industrially used land in the planning area.
Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area
are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends
to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light
industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts
from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts.
Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches
and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the
planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public
school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools,
two elementary schools, and a district administrative center.
Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9
acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes
buildings for the community center and parking.
The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres
of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community pdrks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning
area is lO0 acres.
There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant,
or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land
are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay,
amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include
151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club
for use as a golf course.)
Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are
suitable for development, lhe 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 permitteo by zoning and any physical constraints which limit
permitted uses.
Areas surrounding the i.~ontgomery 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 imple~nted, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance
currently in effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies
and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of
the relationship between the Montgome~ Specific Plan and the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I
and II of the Montgome~ Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the
implementation phase. ~ additional initial study will be required upon
completion of that document.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under
the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the
plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current
residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land
uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type,
where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy
industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan
document are contained within Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center
for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and
Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition,
present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through
proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space,
as well as property adjacent to Rice Ele~ntary 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 Zonin9 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 ~thodically
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 lelegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of
the ~lontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of
Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Ariz~
Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the
Street Iqarsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove
properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year
floodplain. The channelization project does not include
properties within 500 feet of either side of lhird Avenue, and
some areas which are not contained v~ithin 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) ano private country club to
signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures anO 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 bounos 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 Nain Street between Broadway and Industrial
ano 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. lhe area north of ~ain
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 inOustrial uses with interim type storage
and inoustrial yards, 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 alreaoy been established. The area
south of Nain Street is proposed for Research and Industrial
land uses subject to special study prior to designation of
per~anent land uses.
The balance of parcels within t~e Montgomery portion of the Otay
River Valley is proposeo for inclusion as "~hitelands." 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 os 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, ano 2) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and
Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del I,~ar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.)
These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or
people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in
land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows.
l) Brodericks Otay Acres
The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily
with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential
streets in combination with the use of private streets and
drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single
family uses.
-6- k
In i4ay of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's
Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow
development of multiple units with a density not to exceeO 14.5
net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units
have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apart~ents 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 proposed land use designation is in keeping with the
existing land uses present and the circulation system available,
and since there are no actual apartments developed within this
subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur
from this action.
2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Parcels which access Center Street and I~ace Street are currently
zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties
operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and
incluOe scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities
conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open
uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature
and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit
process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from
operation of these businesses.
The proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would
prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict
development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although
displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards
would occur, development of other industrial activities which do
not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under
implementation of the specific plan. The development of other
industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a
beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment
associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the
displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a
level below significance.
3) Properties east of Third ~venue between Naples and Kennedy
T~e draft Montgo~ery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus
point for community civic and commercial activities within the
area surrounOing the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford
Street and along lhird Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street.
This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in t~e
plan as the lhird Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus.
k -7- t.
Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of
commercial land use designations along the east side of Third
Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in
Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations
would take place on properties which are currently residential
in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing
housing as an indirect result of development according to the
plan.
However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated
as a special study area, and 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 a~dress socio-economic, environmental, housing,
townscape planning, and traffic issues."
The special study area is structured so that commercial
development on properties with existing resiOential uses is
precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected.
In adoition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
stuoies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposea 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. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to
widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at
Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at
Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects
which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these
revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering
studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals ·
to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon
further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse
environmental impact.
Lanoform/Topography
One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~loodlawn Park,
is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of
larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further
development of this area for single family residential uses as
outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve
substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard
development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the
City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be
obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed
circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental
assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific
impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures
Manual for the City of Chula Vista.
Given these standard development regulations, no significant and
adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep
topographic conditions at the plan stage.
E. Project Modifications
Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas
is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and
whitelands designations, no mitigation is required.
Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses
which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on
site. Those areas are listed as follows:
A. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted
residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since
the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by
the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within 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
l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development
within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive
areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed
project will not degrade the quality of the environment.
2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and
long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through
protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly
and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of
the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area.
3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no
significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified;
there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively conservative.
4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial
adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
2. Documents
l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code
2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista
3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1~87
4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps
of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Marc),
19B7
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Control and Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army
Cor~s of Engineers, September 1979
6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
066284-2154, 060284-215b, Federal Emergency Ilanagement Agency,
June 15, 1964
7) Sout~ Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985
8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance
9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista
lO) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) ~klf~
wPc 4242P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHULAVIS-D
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT B
/ d/'1; l
'% EXHIBIT C
FUR UFFICE USE
Case No. IS-88-65M
Fee --
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. --
Date Rec'd ~- ~/- ~,~
City of Chula Vista Accepted by --
Applic~ ~on Form Project No. ~:~? ~ ~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A)
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the
three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or
regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute nr pff~rtuatp the plan.
4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista~ Planninq Department
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
5. Name of Preparer/~gent Daniel M. Pass~ Principal Planner and
frank J. Herrera, AssiStant ?~r
Address Same as #4
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant Agent
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan -- Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
E!; ] (Revl 12/8Z)
3/3/88
~ONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT
PART THREE PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1
B. Past Plan Implementation 1
C. Present Plan Implementation 2
D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3
A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4
1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4
2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5
3. Special Montgomery Regulations 6
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8
III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 10
A. Citywide and Special Subdivision ContFo. ls l0
B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12
C. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13
D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13
E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15
IV. CONCLUSION
16
WPC 4173P
DRAFT MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PART THREE
I. II!TRCDUCTIOH
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation
The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal
parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan
proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends
analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of
the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general
objectives, policies, principles, and planning and design
proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan.
Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms
which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains
the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the
Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text.
B. Past Plan Implementation
Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon
the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and
objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both
application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery.
Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on
general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning
needs of Montgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation
efforts in Montgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation,
subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary
land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery
Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and
-1-
missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General
Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust
formulated in conjunction with these issues.
C. Present Plan Implementation
Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula
Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's
administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula
Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and
general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan
calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more
identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
D. Proposed Plan Implementation
The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations"
and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former
addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use
within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of
greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery
Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected
city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored
"Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special
Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban
design guidelines.
A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is
the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the
City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its
incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from
"County Zoning" to "City Zoning."
-2-
The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and
special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital
improvement programming~ code enforcement and coordination;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental
planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
It should be recognized that Part Three establishes an
Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The
rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be
undertaken separately.
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS
A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan
The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego
County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by t~e City of Chula Vista upon
the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning
" Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and
flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of
developments over a broad geographical area.
The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually
grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of
the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and
executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable.
Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista
Zoning Plan.
While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial
retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both
confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide
instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's identity and unique
-3-
land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as
modified by the special provisions and regulations of the
Implementation Program.
The "Special Montgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of
this section of Part III, shall take precedence over other land use
regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them.
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan
1. .~oning and Residential Density Control~
The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant
of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the
territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the
existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing
public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the
physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the
involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula
Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied
to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive
than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan
designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a
fundamental basis of the Implementation Program.
With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or
texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit
per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the
zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not
permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these
Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants
mentioned in the above paragraph.
The llontgomery specific Plan's gross residential density
categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential
density standards, which are fundamental to zoning
regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning
definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in
Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are:
"Net residential density is the density of the building
site. Gross residential density is the density of the
building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and
drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter
of bounding street intersections."
As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is
approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore,
if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it
has a gross density of l0 dwelling units per acre.*
2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation
The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and
changes which are essential to the effective implementation
and execution of the ~iontgomery Specific Plan, and the
conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning;
The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended
County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide
for the direct translation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's
land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is
therefore called the "Table of Translation."
* Gallion & Eisner, in The Urban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is
(the) area exclusive of public rights-of-way...whereas "gross density"
usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of
land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A
distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for
certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant
measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by
gross density.
-5-
3. Special Montgomery Re?ulations
a. Land Use
(1) The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a
planned equilibrium of medium density residential,
park and open space, institutional, commercial, and
light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land,
such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards,
waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel
operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and
shall not be expanded or continued beyond their
existing time limits, or within 24 months after the
date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L,
Limited Industrial," whichever occurs last. This
protracted time limit is designed to provide the
involved land users the opportunity to convert their
open uses of land into well-designed, authorized
light-industrial developments.
All of the subject uses which are not time-limited
shall be governed by the. City's Nonconforming Uses
regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
(2) Existing vehicular and equipment storage yards and
open impounds shall not be governed by the above
provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope
or tenure. New vehicular and equipment storage
yards or open impounds shall be generally
discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under
the conditional use permit process.
-6-
(3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage
industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned;
thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning
Committee and the City Planning Commission; and,
approved under the City's conditional use permit
process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use
development, residential land use shall not be
permitted in industrial or commercial zones.
(4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter
5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be
permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial
Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use
permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be
prohibited.
(5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of
the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula
Vista Design Review Committee, may authorize a
maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a
project proposed for development within an area
designated "Low/Medium..Density Residential" (3-6
dwelling units per acre). This authorization must
be predicated upon the Director's finding that the
proposed project would be characterized by
outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not
become effective or operational in the absence of
its ratification by the Planning Commission.
The subject residential bonus would not be
applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior
Housing Development, as defined in Section 19.04.201
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies
for an affordable-housing density bonus under
-7-
Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government
('ode, or the provisions of the Uousing Element of
the Chula Vista General Plan.
b. Height
The height of commercial and industrial buildings and
structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not
exceed two stories, or 28 feet.
c. Setbacks
All buildings constructed along the Main Street,
Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain
minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the
front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the
rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking
and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the
required setback areas.
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines
a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the
Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee
shall be prerequisite to its approval or conditional
approval of a developmental project.
b. The Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the
fundamental guide for the design review of projects
proposed for development within ~lontgomery. Under
special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or
redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus,
shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial
enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning
-8-
Committee may determine that the townscape-planning
guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are
appropriate, and may request their employment by the
Design Peview Committee.
c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be
promoted in the development of residential, commercial,
industrial, and civic projects.
d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of
vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be
artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane
landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The
landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated
with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which
they are located.
e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between
residential and other land use categories shall be
encouraged.
f. The maximum sign area for a' proposed commercial project
should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of
the involved parcel's street frontage.
Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is
not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum,
twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may
-9-
be permitted through the conditional (major) use permit
and design review processes. A directional sign
permitted under this provision shall not be located
within, or overhang a street right-of-way.
g. New development should reflect the basic design character
and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is
sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and
Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle
Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third
Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could
achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high
levels of urbanity and sophistication.
h. Architectural diversity and freedom should be encouraged
in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, ho~'sever, will
necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design
coordination.
i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture,
bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered.
These features could commemorate the history of the
involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence.
j. Vertical or roof-mounted structures which do not make an
important design statement should be discouraged.
III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN I~.!PLE~IENTATION
A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls
Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of
vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This
process establishes a lot and street pattern, which greatly
-10-
influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is
substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner.
Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery
has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which
permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and
amorphous design. This has Significantly impaired the Community's
order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and
circulation. The ~ontgomery Specific Plan calls for the
improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical
reorganization.
Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to
Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the
Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior
substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented
with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more
orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such
special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition
of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets;
and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard
cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also
stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the
establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially
reduce on-street and front yard parking and Storage, and thereby
improve the overall appearance of Montgomery.
Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's
subdivision controls, as amended in 'accordance with the above
suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and
objectives of the Montgomery Community.
-ll-
B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Pro~ramming
Chula Vista's )!aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major
capital improvements of citywide significance. The rlontgomery
Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital
improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery
planning area to the year 2005.
The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or
may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public
libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will
have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as
school districts and public utility companies. It will require an
annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources
available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the
r,lontgomery Specific Plan.
The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of
long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity.
The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement
Program could facilitate the advance purchase of public sites at a
substantial savings. This program could also encourage private
investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate
their development programs with those of the City.
Capital improvement programming for )lontgomery should be oriented
toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities.
Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the
goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan.
-12-
C. Code Enforcement and Coordination
While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the
public safety, health, and general ~elfare, it also provides a
plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to
foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline;
and, promote revitalization.
Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be
conducted with tact and sensitivity. ]t should be COordinated with
other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment,
and conservation. In l.lontgomery, the code enforcement program
should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the
Specific Plan.
D. Conservation, Pehabilitation, and Redevelopment
The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of
Montgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end.
These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the
selective application of urban renewal measures, such as
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures
may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the
circumstances of the particular project.
1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal,
and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not
significant. It often involves the cleaning and Sprucing up
of residential neighborhoods or Commercial areas, and the
provision of improved public services, works, and
infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively
undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and Usually
do not entail extensive contributions from local government.'
In the Iqontgomery Community, where much conservation activity
is indicated, the ~ontgomery Planning Committee should promote
it on an outreach basis.
2. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area
where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of
concerted action by the private and public sectors could
result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation,
the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of
any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a
general rule, street improvements or additional public
facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of
dignity," and requires a strong community commitment.
Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be
stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and
zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing
programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program.
3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be
used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it
includes the remedies associated with conservation and
rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the
replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of
buildings; the replatting of territory; and the expenditure of
considerable capital for public improvements.
Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled
by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public
improvements are usually underwritten through lax increment
financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within
l~ontgomery, such as ~lest Fairfield, where land must be
marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most
practical remedy available is redevelopment.
-14-
E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Progra,,~
The Montgomery Neighborhood ~evitalization Program (NRP) is a newly
instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining
well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical
facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program
include:
-- identification and prioritization of needed public capital
improvements;
-- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation
loan program;
-- public education on zoning, building and other City codes;
-- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up
programs.
The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in
limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered
prior to the determination of a n~ighborhood's eligibility for
target-area status:
-- need for public i~provements;
-- need for housing rehabilitation;
-- neighborhood character;
-- income status;
-- demonstration of local support for NRP.
-15-
IV. CONCLUSION
The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is
specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives,
statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the
Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses
the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition
to its long-range, Comprehensive, and general planning issues. The
program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's
organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban
center in question.
The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called
"incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day
application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally,
the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered
to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
WPC 4173P
-16-
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
-- or
~mer/owner in escrow*
G De .,
Consultant' or AOent'*'" .... ~ or
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and Correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ~-(~[~/V
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: ,i,, ·
North j
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? '~
the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? /!]
Is
teC
or enhance
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pro
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ,~I! ,~
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ,~/~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) t_~ ,~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) i ~.*1
- 9 -
3. Jchools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
S~chool Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to he at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk,,form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe. ~l_J ~
5. ~ner~y Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
SOUrCes:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year) ~
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Uirector ot Planning or Rearesentative 9~te ?' /'~ ''';'~
-lO-
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any 'flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities?
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~//4
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~y//~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? /.).f~
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project? Z.//.z/~
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? ~/~
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Be fore After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? A/~
If so, specify the genera) nature of the necessary actions.
-ll
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?_~_~
Liquefaction?_ ,
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil Conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ,,~/~
6. Noise --
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant~
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
Iper day) Factor Pollution
CO i X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) X 20.0 :
Particulates ~ 1.5 =
Sulfur ~K X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ Liquid
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
{Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City ~9~n~ o~R~enta~ve~ Date
~ 13 -
Case No.
FIRE DEPARTNENT ,
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? . .
Remarks
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPART31ENT .
l. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the p.roposed facility without an increase .in equipment
or personnel?, 7~_~$~_72~1~L~/ '
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONNENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO.
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES ~OTENTIAL NO
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure?
A significant modification of any unique
geological features?
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards?
2. Soils
a. Does the project s'ite contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? _.
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site?
A significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground I~ater
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
- 15 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of ground water?
A significant alteration of direction or rate
of flow of ground water? ''
Any other significant affect on ground water?
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation? L~-×
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff?
Any increase in runoff beyond the-capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either
on-site
or downstream?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
waves?
5. Resources
Could the project result in:
Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources uhich can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentia)ly productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change.
in topography or ground surface relief features?
~ES POTENTIAL NO
7. Air Quality -'
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
m m
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors fumes,
or smoke?
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality?
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
or State ambient air quality standard? _
Interference with the maintenance, of
standard air quality?
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally?
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies (RAQS)?
8. Water Quality -
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public w~ter supplies?
9. N__oise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary Sources?
b. Could the project directly or indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise ]evels?
- 17 -
YES POTENTIAL
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife?
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemic species?
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological'resource?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent ~¢ith
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
Noi se
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
YES ~gTENTIAL NO
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan? ....
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a new light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
Th~b~ntial demand for additional housing
Or--existing housing?
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project?
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
Fire Protection ~ L//
Police Protection
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
IncTuding Roads
- 19 -
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy?
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy?
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources?
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for ne~.~ systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Po~er or natural gas
Communications systems
Water
Sewer or septic tanks
Solid waste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard?
19. Transportation/Access
Could the project result .in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns?
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level?
20. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-reneuable natural resources?
- 20 -
YES POT£NTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition? ,L,,.,,~'
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level?
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, whil~ long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable ~,~hen vie~ved in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM FOR
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report city of
Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment:
EIR-89-08
A. BACKGROUND
The proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 area
consists of approximately 790 acres and is located in the western
portion of the City of Chula Vista. Exhibit A shows the location
of the LCP Resubmittal area. The proposed LCP Resubmittal area
encompasses the same area as the existing certified LCP. The LCP
Resubmittal text revises the existing certified LCP in two main
ways: 1) by designating the area within the recently established
National Wildlife Refuge as open space; and 2) by concentrating
most of the remaining text changes to the Midbayfront subarea.
Proposed changes within the Midbayfront subarea include
modifications to the arrangement of land uses, building height
controls, and development intensity.
The purpose of the EIR is to provide an accurate and concise
informational document which analyzes the environmental
consequences of approval and adoption of the proposed LCP
Resubmittal. Any changes to the LCP would require corresponding
changes to the city's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan. This EIR, therefore, also addresses changes
to these plans.
The Draft EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth
inducing impacts, and other environmental summaries required by
CEQA.
The environmental analysis included in the Draft EIR addresses
the following issues: geology/soils/groundwater, hydrology/water
quality, visual aesthetics/community character, conversion of
agricultural lands, air quality, noise, biology,
archaeology/history, paleontology, land use/general plan
elements/zoning, community social factors, community tax
structure, parks/recreation/and open space, utility service, and
transportation/access. The environmental consultant that
prepared this Draft EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
of San Diego, California.
This Draft EIR was subject to a 45-day review period through the
State Clearinghouse which concluded September 20, 1990. The
comments received through the State Clearinghouse will be
distributed to the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing.
The comments received to date by staff are attached as Exhibit B.
-2-
B. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR-89-08, close the
hearing and give Keller Environmental Associates and staff any
desired direction for the preparation of the Final EIR.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Geoloq¥/Soils/Groundwater
Development of the proposed project and alternatives
would result in the following four potentially
significant impacts:
1. Ground settlement due to consolidation of the
compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and
the artificial fill soils on site;
2. Grading impacts for onsite and offsite water and
sewer pipelines;
3. Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface
displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and
earthquake-induced flooding; and
4. Potential foundation design and construction
difficulties associated with the construction of
foundations at or near the groundwater table.
Mitigation measures are available to reduce the
identified impacts, but in the absence of site specific
grading plans and geotechnical studies, it is not
possible to conclude that grading, drainage,
geotechnical impacts and seismic risk can be mitigated
to a less than significant level.
2. Hydroloqy/Water Oualitv
Five potentially significant hydrology/water quality
impacts were cited as a result of development of the
project and the alternatives. These include:
1. Flooding of a) low-lying areas from tidal highs,
compounded by runup from wind-driven waves
(coastal flood hazards); b) flooding from the
Sweetwater River; c) flooding associated with
exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain
facilities on site;
2. Erosion from inland or coastal flooding;
-3-
3. Siltation and chemical contamination degradation
of water quality from surface runoff-pesticides,
fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.;
4. Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards,
specifically related to the design storm flow,
gravity pipe requirements, and the selected runoff
coefficient (only for Nodal Point 303); and
5. Limited data regarding quantity and quality of
water for both the 10-acre public lagoon and the
semi-public residential lagoon in the northern
portion of the site result in the concern
regarding the quality of water to be used in the
lagoons.
In the absence of a detailed drainage plan, a site
specific hydrology study, and a groundwater study, it
is not possible to conclude that hydrology/water
quality impacts can be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
3. Visual Aesthetics/Community Character
Significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur
from development of the proposed project and three
reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, and
5). No significant aesthetic/visual impacts would
occur from development allowed under the existing LCP.
Significant impacts would occur due to:
1. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape
from the Nature Interpretive Center, where
aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment is
a significant part of the visitor experience,
would be permanently lost.
2. Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from
public use areas and establishments along Bay
Boulevard.
3. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape
from areas within the City of Chula Vista and from
I-5, that would be incompatible with the
waterfront image community identity of Chula
Vista.
Mitigation of these impacts would require a redesign of
the project in conjunction with further reduced density
alternatives. Otherwise, these impacts would remain
significant. Mitigation for No. 1 would require
-4-
removal or significantly reduced building heights for
apartment buildings closest to the Interpretive Center,
as well as reduced density and building heights for
high rise hotels. Mitigation for No. 2 would require
changes in building locations and densities to permit
some views to the bay along Bay Boulevard and from
commercial/visitor establishments. Mitigation for
No. 3 would require overall reduced building heights
and reductions in density, in accordance with the
existing certified LCP, as well as implementation of
specific design criteria.
4. Conversion of A~ricultural Lands
The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential
agricultural land to urban uses is not considered
significant at the project level. The loss of
agricultural land from the project represents an
incremental contribution to a regionally significant
loss of agricultural land to development.
5. Air Quality
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur
from development of the proposed cogeneration plant.
An incremental contribution to regional air quality
problems would also occur from vehicular sources. In
addition, cumulative impacts would occur from vehicular
emissions added to the cogeneration plant emissions.
Mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce these
impacts to a level below significant, including
compliance with the Air Pollution Control District's
requirements for cogeneration emissions, dust control
(during construction), construction traffic monitoring,
and implementation of Transportation Control Measures
coordinated through a transportation management agency.
Further, once the proposed parking garages have been
designed, an additional air quality analysis must be
conducted to assess potential air quality impacts to
the garage users.
6. Noise
Potentially significant noise impacts could occur from
construction activities, and land use incompatibility.
Specifically the location of the child care center
close to the noise from I-5 and the cogeneration
facility raise noise concerns. These impacts can be
mitigated to a level below significant by limiting
construction activities to certain times, limiting
construction access routes, establishing a noise
-5-
performance standard for the cogeneration facility, and
by requiring a noise barrier along the eastern end of
the child care facility.
7. Bioloav
Numerous impacts are cited to biological resources
including wildlife resources, threatened and endangered
species, and marine resources. Twenty-six mitigation
measures are detailed for biological impacts in the
Draft EIR. These mitigation measures would help to
minimize the impacts of the project on biological
resources, but significant unmitigable impacts would
remain.
Of primary concern are the effects of increased
predator presence, specifically in the wetlands
fringing the Midbayfront. Species expected to be
particularly impacted by this threat are nesting
Belding's Savannah Sparrows and Black-necked Stilts.
In addition, increased predation of the Light-footed
Clapper Rails and the California Least Tern Colony
could potentially result from raptors utilizing the
tall buildings as perch sites. Shifting the location
of these buildings within the Midbayfront could
potentially reduce these impacts, but is not likely to
reduce them to a less than significant level.
Further, since the potential for contaminant discharge
cannot be estimated at this time, this impact is
considered to be significant and unmitigable until
additional detailed information is available.
8. Archaeoloav/Historv
The impacts to archaeological and historical resources
were found to be less than significant.
9. Paleontoloq¥
Significant impacts to paleontological resources could
occur during project grading. The standard on-site
monitoring requirements are included in the Draft EIR
as mitigation for these impacts.
10. Land Use/General Plan Elements/Zoninq
Significant land use impacts would occur from
development of the proposed project and reduced density
alternatives 3, 4, and 5. The significant impacts
would result from:
-6-
1) Incompatibility of the intense nature of the
development with the land uses of the surrounding
Chula Vista area;
2) Incompatibility of the intense nature of
development with the adjacent unique open space
uses of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge and Nature Interpretive Center;
3) The potential incompatibility of the residences
located above and nearby the commercial retail and
commercial visitor uses in the central core area.
Such potential impacts include noise from traffic
and people, traffic congestion, night-lighting and
competition for parking spaces, all of these
largely occurring on weekends and evenings when
most people are home; and
4) Inconsistency with the existing certified LCP and
the General Plan (2010).
The only mitigation measure possible to reduce the
impacts from land use intensity incompatibility (number
1 above) and incompatibility with the adjacent NWR
(number 2 above) to below a level of significance would
be to redesign the proposed project and the reduced
density alternatives. Otherwise, these impacts would
remain significant. Mitigation for impact number 3
above would involve building design techniques.
Mitigation for number 4 above would also necessitate
either project redesign, or approval of this
Resubmittal, and approval of a General Plan Amendment;
otherwise, this land use impact would also remain
significant. Since project redesign is not proposed at
this time, the significant land use impacts requiring
redesign for impact reduction are considered
significant and unmitigable.
No significant land use impacts would occur from the
development allowed under the existing LCP.
11. Community Social Factors
A significant increase in housing and a resulting
population increase would occur on the project site
over what was planned for the site, and a substantial
increase in employment opportunities would occur. Both
the increase in housing and employment opportunities
are considered beneficial impacts.
-7-
12. Community Tax Structure
No significant adverse impacts would occur in the area
of community tax structure.
13. Parks, Recreation. and Open Space
The EIR cites the following inadequacies in the
proposed project in the area of parks, recreation, and
open space:
1. The phasing plan does not include parks; includes
public park parking in Phase V, or in years 2009
to 2011;
2. Insufficient amount of parking for park users;
3. Inadequate information regarding public access
from on-site parking areas to parks, and from
areas across I-5 to the east to the parks.
4. Shade impacts to parks and public areas.
Mitigation is possible to reduce the first three
impacts to below a level of significance. These
measures are:
1. Revise the Phasing Plan to include the parks and
adequate public park parking (as approved by the
city) within Phase I.
2. Creation of additional public parking spaces per
City requirements; and
3. Provision of access plan both on-site and off-site
to the east, and approval of plan by city Planning
and Community Development Departments.
The fourth impact can only be reduced by project
redesign, thus, it remains significant.
Additionally, an adverse and cumulatively significant
impact is expected to occur from anticipated high
regional demand placed on the bayfront parks resulting
in limited amounts of parkland for anticipated high
use. To reduce this impact to a level below
significant, the park areas west of Marina Parkway
should not be broken up with development, but, rather,
should be continuous along the bayfront. The amount of
parkland provided by Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 7 ranges
from approximately 20 to 35 percent greater than what
the project proposes. Provision of a similar amount of
parkland as proposed by the alternatives with a similar
-8-
design (continuous) would reduce the cumulative impact
to below a level of significance.
14. Utility Service
The Draft EIR identifies mitigable impacts in the areas
of Gas and Electric, Fire and Police, Solid Waste,
Sewer, and Water. In the area of schools, however,
costs to the school districts to transport students to
schools east of Interstate 5 would remain unresolved,
and, therefore, significant.
15. Transportation/Access
Development of the proposed project would result in
significant impacts to street and intersection
capacities at streets in the project vicinity. Levels-
of-service F, E, and D would occur at:
1. "E" Street between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn
Avenue where capacity would exceed 100 percent.
2. "E" Street intersection with Bay Boulevard/I-5
southbound ramp (level-of-service F).
3. "E" Street intersection with I-5 northbound ramp
(level of service E).
4. "J" Street intersection with I-5 southbound ramp
(level-of-service D).
Additionally, the gate down time of the San Diego
trolley would worsen the "E" Street impacts; it is
estimated that this down time could account for an
overall reduction of intersection capacity by 10
percent. These cited impacts assumed that five street
improvements to be carried out by the developer or by
CalTrans would be accomplished. If the measures were
not accomplished, more levels-of-service F would
result.
Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would
reduce the levels-of-service to D and C (D remains
significant), however, these measures are not proposed
by the developer nor agreed to by an important adjacent
landowner (Rohr Industries). These measures include 1)
forcing Rohr traffic south to the "H" Street
intersection (which worsened conditions there to
levels-of-service D and C), instead of allowing them to
access "E" Street, and 2) limiting Rohr traffic to the
off-peak p.m. period ( 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.).
-9-
Because these measures are not proposed, nor agreed to,
they are not considered feasible. Thus, the cited
significant impacts to street and intersection capacity
are not mitigable.
D. ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project," and to evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus
on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant
adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of
insignificance , even if these alternatives would impede to
some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would
be more costly."
The alternatives analysis in the Draft EIR includes seven
alternatives, four of which were development plans which
were analyzed at the same level of detail as the proposed
project. The alternatives are listed below; numbers 2
through 5 are those that are analyzed the same level of
detail as the proposed project.
1. No Project
2. Development Under Existing Certified LCP
3. Reduced Density 1 (26 percent intensity decrease from
developer's proposal)
4. Reduced Density iA (26 percent intensity decrease from
developer's proposal)
5. Reduced Density 2 (47 percent intensity decrease from
developer's proposal)
6. Possible Locational Alternatives
7. Reduced Density/Modified Design Alternative (47 percent
intensity decrease from developer's proposal)
Locational Alternatives
Eight locational alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIR.
The alternative site locations are included in response to the
recent Goleta case, in which the Court ruled that EIRs must
evaluate alternative locations for a project, in addition to
project alternatives on the same site. Alternative sites are
examined in the EIR not as a viable option to the proposed
project, but rather to assess whether environmental impacts from
the same or a similar project might be reduced or eliminated at a
different site than the proposed location. Exhibit C shows the
location of six of the eight alternatives.
The Midbayfront development plan would create reduced impacts in
a different location, possibly in such areas as shown by possible
-10-
locational alternatives 2 and 6. It was also concluded that the
elements of the development plan that resulted in the
significant, unmitigable impacts were the high density, building
bulk, and building heights. Thus, Alternative 7, an additional
on-site alternative, was designed in an effort to reduce project
impacts.
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 was developed by reviewing the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project, and designing a
development which maintained the land uses proposed by the
project while avoiding or significantly reducing the cited
impacts. The design reduced the overall intensity to a level
allowed by the existing LCP (this alternative assumes a maximum
of approximately 2.5 million square feet of building). The
design also reduced the heights of buildings throughout the
project area.
Under Alternative 7, the significant unmitigable impacts in the
areas of geology/soils/groundwater and hydrology/water quality
would remain due to lack of detailed information. It is,
however, likely that these impacts could be mitigated to below
significant at the project level. With the mitigation measures
outlined in the Draft EIR, impacts in the areas of visual
aesthetics/co~umunity character, land use/ general plan
elements/zoning, and parks/recreation/and open space could be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Four impacts to biological resources would remain significant and
unmitigable under Alternative 7. In addition, traffic impacts
were also assessed as significant and unmitigable because one
level of service D would remain. Finally, the issue of school
transportation costs would remain unresolved, and, therefore,
significant under Alternative 7.
In summary, although significant unmitigable impacts would result
from implementation of Alternative 7, the number of unmitigable
impacts would be substantially reduced from the number identified
for the proposed project.
(EIR)
SUB,a~
· ' SUBAREA 1
.'~...
' '" ":':':'
CHULA VI S'~A
SWEL~I'WATI~
Rt~UGE
PROPOSED L~
~S~~ NO. 8 "':~
, BOU~Y ":
.:.:~'::..'.T(~.~. ~..?: '~.... ....~.~".~ :.'.
----,.-~ .EXHIBIT A
I. C P RESUBMITTAI- ARBA
Figure 2-II
EXHIBIT B
August 27, 1990
To: Maryann Miller
Planning Department
AUG 22 1990
From: Carol Gore ~
Fire Marshal
Subject: Midbayfront EIR
Chief Lopez and I have reviewed the Draft Local Coastal Program
Resubmittal Specific Plan and the EIR for the Midbayfront.
One area overlooked was the need for an additional Fire Inspector to
handle the increased workload due to the project in terms of plan review
and site inspections plus routine fire safety inspections and
educational programs.
011508L
Sweetwater Union High School District
August 23. 1990
,\Ug : 0
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 92010
RE: Draft City of Chula Vista Mid Bayfront LCP Resubmittal
No. 8 and Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Leiter:
I wish to extend my appreciation for the opportunity to review
the Draft Environmental Impact Report and amended Local Coastal
Plan prepared for the Chula Vista Mid Bayfront Plan. The
comments contained in this letter articulate the District's
concerns with the contents of the report.
The project impact to secondary schools as associated with the
developer's proposal lidentified on Table 2-1 of the report), is
reported accurately. The District can anticipate a minimum of
450 new students if the project is approved at that level of
development intensity.
The Mid Bayfront area is served by the Chula Vista Junior High
School and the Chula Vista High School. These two facilities are
operating above the permanent capacities for which they were
designed. Currently. the junior high school is operating at 134%
capacity, and high school is at 1464. Additionally. recent
enrollment projections indicate that the District will experience
an average growth rate of 4.4% for the next six years so it is
unlikely that enrollment at these schools will drop in the
upcoming years.
The proposed mitigation measure of incorporating this project
into an existing Mello-Roos community facilities special tax
district, or creating a new CFD, is one step towards mitigating
the impacts the project has ,ipon the school district. However.
that in of itself, is not sufficient mitigation to bring the
project below levels of significant impact.
Mr. Robert Leiter
August 23. 1990
Page Two
The following indicates issues which must also be addressed and
resolved:
* Transportation Costs: SI.000.000
8 busses will be required to transport
students to schools outside the project
area
* Annual Operating Costs: 327.290
The state does not fund transportation
operating costs.
* Relocatable Classroom Costs (15): 1,245.000
(If students must attend school outside
the project area.)
* Permanent Classroom Costs [15): 1.512.000
(If new classrooms are to be constructed
within the project areal
In the District's May 31. 1990 letter to the City. Mr. Andrew B.
Campbell identified that a school site in the Mid Bayfront area
is necessary. The provision of a site will mitigate the
classroom issue without severely impacting nearby community
schools.
The following mitigation measures will bring the project's
impacts below levels of significance:
A Incorporate the project into a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District.
B Provide compensation to cover operating costs. If a
new Mello-Roos Community Facilities District is
created, these costs can be identified in the CFD.
and the compensation will not be necessary.
C Provide a secondary school site within the project
area.
Mr. Robert Leiter
August 23. 1990
Page Three
Mr. Leiter, I am requesting that the Environmental Impact Report
and the proposed amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan not
be approved unless the above lettered items are included as
conditions of approval.
If you have any comments or questions, regarding this
correspondence, please feel free to call me.
Director of Planning
TS:ml
cc: John Goss. City Manager
Kate Shurson. Chula Vista City Schools
Enclosure
Swe water Union High Sc;-' l District
May 31, 1990
Mr. David Gustafson
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
Re: Proposed Bayfront Project
In reviewing our projected enrollments for the Fall of 1990, it
has become apparent that the Sweetwater Union High School District
will need a school site and the construction of a facility in
order to house the students generated from this development.
Sincerely,
Administrator of Planning
ABC:mr
cc: Mr. Leighter, Planning Department
4901 MORENA BLVD STE 703' SAN DIEGO, CA 92117' 61914897620 ~P I 8 1990
~eptem~r 11, 1990
Environmental Revie~ Cnordi nator
City of (:hula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
The ~an Disso Audubon Society has reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed revision to the Chula
Vista LCP as submitted by Chula Vista Inve~tors.
In general, We are in agreement viththe conclusiono of the EIR, nomelg that the project would have
a large numher of significont and unmitigetable edverae i mpects on the Bayfront environment. We
concur with the findi ag that the proposed down-scaled olternotivas would not significantly modify the
severity of t here impacts. The proposed alterations to the Chula Vista bay Wetlands Weuld seem ~a
severe that it is doubtful either Coastal Commi~ion or Corps of Engi hoers (404 permit) approval
could be obtoi ned.
The only portion of the DEIR We would suggest he re-examined is the contention that the effects of
dovelopmnt to avian flight patterno (p. 4 of the Impact Matrix) have "no or limited impacts".
Although specific studies on this particular phenomenon may be limited, the continuing diminution in
available Wetlaed areas along the Bay, combined with increa~iag emplacament of bulky buildinge oloag
the bagfront, cannot help but have ~erious d~tri rental effects to the ability of migratory birdo to
successfully fi nd passage, and resting areas, through the ~an Diego metropolitan area (which, as is
veil known, lies at a critical point on the Pacific Flyway). We urge the conoultants to re-examine
this issue.
The significant and unmitigetable impacts identified i n the DEIR result in our recommendation that
this proposed amendmnt to the Chula Vista LCP be rejected.
For the San Diego Audubon Societu,
Norm Sullivan, Conservation Chair
4~7 Delaware Street .
RECEIVED Imperial Beach, CA 92052
Sept. 17, 1990
'9O SEP 18 P 2:20
City of Chula Vista Planning C~mmission
c/O Environmental ~i~];~r~i~tor
P o Box lo87 CITY CLERK'$OFFK
Chula Vista, CA 92102
Dear Planning Commission l~embers:
This letter is written to comment on the DRAFT City
of Chula Vista ivlidbayfront LCP ~esubmittal No. 8 Amendment,
Environmental impact Report.
Many impacts of the proposed action are described.
Unfortunately, Cumulative Impacts, in Section 9, are
grossly and disasterously under-estimated.
The proposed action obviously impacts the natural
and biological resources of San Diego Bay, particularly the
South Bay. So do the following proposed projects:
1. A development, similar to this proposal, at the
Port District National City Marine Terminal (p. 4-5 of this
2. The McComic-Halivest proposal for boat manu-
facturing with a launch ramp into the Sweetwater Flood Control
Channel at the old ITT plant in National City.
3. Developer Barkett's proposal for a marina in
National City between Pepper Park and Paradise Creek Marsh.
4. South Bay Boat yard Expansion,
5. Chula Vista Nautical Activity Center just south
of "G" Street, which is just south of the South Bay Boatyard.
6. A Shel~e~/Harbor Island type development just off-
shore from "G" to "J' Streets in Chula Vista.
?. Commercial/residential development of privately
owned salt pond lands.
page 1 of 5
page 2 of 5
8. Imperial Beach (IB) marina along the north edge
of the 0ray River opposite the IB city shops with a channel
dredged thereto.
9. Residential/commercial development of the RV
park south of the most southwestern salt pond along Highway 75.
10. 2nd Harbor ~trance
Crown Isle hotel
12. Bay side development of Silver Strand State Park
Coronado yacht club slip expansion
Until the cumulative impacts of at least the above
thirteen proposals have been considered, the ~lidbayfront E.1.R.
cannot be considered acceptably complete.
And cumulative impacts analysis must take into
account the finally released (by the San Diego Unified Port
District and California State Coastal Conservancy) South San
Diego Bay h~hancement Plan, particularly Volume III, which
explains that further development impacts cannot be mitigated
in South San Diego Bay.
In the semi-desert area of coastal southern California,
a developmemt featuring water, even an artificial salt water
lagoon, as its centerpiece is highly inappropriate. [~umerous
problems and environmental impacts of the proposed midbay-
front project could be eliminated by featuring drouth resist-
ant native coastal flora and fauna habitat which is in extremely
short supply in this area.
Specific comments by page (p.) and paragraph (para),
counting partial paragraphs, follow.
P. 3-?, para 2: The 10-acre salt water lagoon "would
be_ _--presumably revetted." The environmental assessment of
the lagoon cannot be assessed until this question is answered.
p. 3-10, para 1: The report says: "_ _ _, detailed
site and engineering design, and detailed soils and ged -
technical studies must be prepared by a soils engineer for
addressal of site constraints." Until the designs and studies
are done, environmental assessment is not possible. Indeed,
the ~roDosed project and alternatives may not be feasible.
p. 3-16, para 1: The report says" storm drains,
presumably with oil and grease traps, The presence or
page 3 of 5
absCence of oil and grease traps must be known before environ-
mental assessment is possible.
p. 3-19, para l: The report says a baffle
and two stilling blocks which presumably would trap sediment,
grease and oil." If we must presume, we cannot know the
environmental impacts of the project.
P. 3-19, para 4: If as seems likely, ground water for
the lagoon is contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons,
including trichlor oethene, the lagoon should not be con-
structed, or an impact assessment of using bay water (p. 3-21,
para 5) must be made.
p. 3-24, Visual Aesthetics/Community Character
The subject of views from 1-5 and city streets is
mentioned so often and analyzed in such depth that it must be
pointed out that people driving cars on a crowded high speed
freeway and busy urban streets should attend to their driving,
not A~Y available views.
p. 3-32, para 4: It is my understanding that the
"Dilapidated agricultural structures'nave been removed by the
City of Chula Vista.
p...3-60, para penultimate: Until it can be shown
how/where concurrent emissions reductions elsewhere within
the air basin" can be done, the project is not feasible.
P. 3-76, para 3: The report says: fish were
not systematically sampled " It is likely that the San
Diego Unified Port District's finally released South San Diego
Bay A~hancement Plan (SSDBEP) can successfully serve as re-
ference for the Final E.I.R. The SS~EP is the most exhaustive
and .intensive study of South Bay habitats and native inhabi-
tants done to date.
Volume One specifically deals with benthic marine
invertebrates, plankton and nekton,fishes and sea turtles.
Fig. 3-VI: There must be a reason why several use
areas, particularly those of Belding's Savannah Sparrow and
Wandering Skipper Butterfly, are found immediately outside
but almost none within the project site.
p. 3-80, para 3: "Due to the high value of these
(coastal wetlands) systems and the rapid losses they have under-
page 4 of 5
gone, almost any impacts to these systems would be considered
siamificant~ should have under-scoring as just shown.
p. 3-81, para 3: Eelgrass beds are reportedly expanding in
San Diego Bay probably due to the four year drouth which has
reduced run-off which carries fertilizers and sediment, both
of which decrease water clarity. When normal rainfall re-
turns and bay waters become once again more cloudy, eelgrass
beds will shrink in size.
p. 3-87, para l: Where will the ~4.2 acre loss in the
F & G street marsh and 49.8 acre loss of the E street/Vener
Pond/Sweetwater marshes be mitigated?
P. 3-89, para [: " irrigation runoff "
could best be controlled by using only native drouth resistant
species for landscaping.
p. 5-89, para 3: The report says "At this time not
enough information is available to analyze this issue as it
relates to biological resources." The project, cannot, there-
fore be considered until enough information is available.
p. 3-90, para 2: This problem could also be alleviated
by usin~ native drouth resistant species in landscaping.
P. 3-91, para 4: Without an estimate of the potential
for contaminant discharge, the project cannot proceed.
p. 3-94, para 4: How is the word "conserved" used here?
p. 5-96, para 2, 3: Prohibition of ownership of dogs
and cats by residents of and visitors to the project could
largely solve the problem.
p. 3-96, para 4: " water front approaches by boats
and jet skis "can be stopped if the San Diego Unified Port
District enforces the existing 5 mph speed limit and confines
water sports to existing Chula Vista marina and Coronado Cays
dredged channels.
p. 3-[12, 5. b. : If mudflats and eelgrass beds are
to be converted from uplands, what will be done to replace
the uplands so converted? These near-shore uplands are also
extremely valuable habitat. It is here that Belding's savannah
sparrowsnest.
page 5 of 5 ~
p. 3-112, Requirements: it should be emphasized that
converting one kind of valuable habitat into another requires
mitigation for the habitat which was converted into the other.
p. 3-115, 2~: If dredging, marinas, water sports
courses, etc. should not be allowed along the bay front at
this project, they should not be allowed along the bayfront
anywhere, including the proposed nautical activity center at
the foot of "G" Street.
p. 3-115, 22: Raptor nesting could be mostly elimina-
ted from landscaping materials if these were required to be
native drouth resistant plants of low stature.
p. 3-151, para 4: Surely mitigation of revenue loss
to the County is necessary, one way or another, and surely
it is feasible if Redevelopment law were to be changed as
is possible in a participating democracy.
p. 3-152, para 2: The Special Purpose park at the
Chula Vista l~ature interpretive Center, disruptive as it
would be to wildlife in the ~efuge, requires an E.I.R. ;~hen
will this E.i.R. be done?
p. 3-156, Public Access: The parking shortage must
be dealt with before an E.i.R. can be acceptable.
p. 3-160, para 2: Areas to the west and the north
are so nearly equally sensitive, that a distinction should
not be drawn and protection of the "open space" should be
maximized along both boundaries.
p. 3-191: Since traffic problems cannot be solved,
is the project feasible?
p. 4-2: People, their pets and trash dumping can be
controlled, thereby making Alternative 1 acceptable. Environ-
mentally sensitive public access to the bay front could be
improved.
Fig. 4-VI : The ponds just east and just west of
Dairy i~art Road, south of i-5, should be shown.
i appreciate the opportunity to present these comments.
S~erely yours,
~,'illiam E. Claycom~
Save Our Bay,
(forming)
I
I
p )cean
Beach
I I::1
I
S .~c National City
I U
I
! M Point Lema
0
! 1' cb.la
! T Imperial Beach "
A
1 ..... L
8 u.s.~
~ -'
LOCA~ ALIASES
~XHIBIT
~ P~ D~t~t Na~nal C~ M~ T~I
I e MKEG 8fie
~ ~ ~ecoast Dat~Hmpe~l ~h N
~ D~ Ro~
I e ~tem U~ Ce~er