Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/02/28 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 28, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 17, 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-90-J: Consideration to rezone 0.10 acres located on the south of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 800 ft. east of Paseo del Rey, from R-l-P-4 to C-O-P - Telegraph Canyon Office Partnership 2, PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-05: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Villa Del Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, located at 1190-1192 Fifth Avenue - John and Yolanda Pollorena 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-07: Request to consider the Growth Management Element of the Chula Vista General Plan 4. Consideration of Final EIR-89-4M with Addendum 5. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-2M: Request for a proposed Montgomery Specific Plan Amendment for 12.22 acres from Industrial to Commercial use located on the southeasterly quadrant of an unnamed street and Palomar Street - Pacific Scene Development (continued from 2/14/90) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J-M: Request to rezone 12.22 acres located on the southeasterly quadrant of an unnamed street and Palomar Street from the City adopted County "M-52" zone (Limited Industrial) to "C-C" (Central Commercial) - Pacific Scene Development (continued from 2/14/90) OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of March 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-J Consideration to rezone O.lO acres located on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 800 ft. east of Paseo del Rey, from R-l-P-4 to C-O-P - Telegraph Canyon Office Partnership A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a proposal to rezone O.lO acres from R-l-P-4 {Single family/precise plan/4 du/ac) to C-O-P {Commercial office/precise plan) in order to allow for the construction of a 15,000 sq. ft. medical office building on 0.87 acres located at the easterly terminus of old Telegraph Canyon road, between Telegraph Canyon Road on the north and the Sunbow development on the south. 2. This item has been scheduled so that the office project will be considered by the Design Review Committee prior to the Commission hearing on the rezone. The DRC meeting on the project has been rescheduled from February 26 to March 12, 1990. It is appropriate therefore to continue the Commission hearing to the meeting of March 14, 1990. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to continue PCZ-90-J to the meeting of March 14, 1990. WPC 7274P CITY OF' CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT '..~, i:~C;..;iT'S ST.\TE>~£~,T 27 O~SCLOSURE OF CERTAIN O~.;NERSHIP INTERESTS OtI ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING I.COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. ~l~'thew Ronald ~nin ~ceat ~eric~ Devil ~nt ~nI, .. Wi l l i am Patrick K~er j~ck A. glutton ~orge ~o~s ~er John W. ~ar~nmr, .]r List the names gf all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Great ~erisan ~lo~nt C~ny Math~ Ronald ~on~ Willi~ Patrick ~er Jack A. ~tt~n ~orge ~o~s ~er Jo~ W. ~er, Jr. Z. If any person identified pursuant to'(1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Great ~eric~ First S~qs B~k _. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) 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. .N/A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Commi'ttees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No >o( If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, I~ club, fraternal organization, corporation,, estate,. ~ru~ .req~i~e[,Lsyndic~:,' this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, o~str~c~ or o r Ipolitical subdivision, or any other group or combination acting (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary'~/'~. / ~ l~i~j'nature of applicant/date WPC 0701P J~r~s B. Caz-ter A-llO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 February 20, 1990 To: Planning Commission From: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner~'- Subject: PCS-90-05 - Consideration of Tentative Subdivision Map for Villa Del Rey Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, John and Yolanda Pollerena The Initial Study and Negative Declaration done on this project were originally undertaken in August of 1989, and the zoning, and proposed project have changed since it was first reviewed by the Design Review Committee. In order to bring the Initial Study and Negative Declaration up to date to reflect the present proposed project, staff are recommending that the public hearing on this project be continued to the March 14, 1990 meeting of the City Planning Commission. BR:nr City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-07: Consideration of the Chula Vista Growth Management Element, an amendment to the General Plan City Initiated A. BACKGROUND On July ll, 1989, the City Council adopted the Chula Vista General Plan update. The Plan included all of the required elements under state law. It also proposed the inclusion of a Growth Management Element. In order to avoid slowing down the progress of the General Plan, that Growth Management Element was to be completed separate from the main General Plan document and later inserted into the document when completed. This Growth Management Element, once adopted, will be part of the "Community Development" section of the General Plan. This Growth Management Element is just one part of an overall Growth Management Program designed to implement a comprehensive public facilities phasing and financing program. That program is more fully described in Appendix 3 of the Growth Management Element. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-31, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of this project. Based on the attached Initial Study, the Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-31. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study, IS-90-31, find that this project will have no significant impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on the Initial Study. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft Growth Management Element, of the Chula Vista General Plan, dated November 17, 1989. C. DISCUSSION This Growth Management Element defines growth management issues, goals, objectives, and policies. It, also, sets forth action programs to manage, oversee, and monitor the Growth management Plan. In proposing this Element, a broad perspective has been used and objectives included dealing with the economy, public facilities, affordable housing, community character and identity, open space and natural resource protection, and regional growth management. This approach has been used because Growth Management is being defined as trying to preserve a given "Quality of Life". The term "Quality of Life" means different things to different people, thus the Element attempts to respond in a broad sense to those different criteria. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 2 Implementation focused in on five Action Programs. Those Action Programs are detailed on pages 23-28 of the Element. They focus in on the major issue areas discussed in the Element and their topic areas can be summarized as follows: 1. Continuation of Regional Growth Management efforts with SANDAG and adjacent cities to respond to planning issues that transcend city boundaries. 2. Implement Phase II of the Growth Management Program to more fully respond to public facility phasing and financing from a comprehensive planning perspective rather than on a project-by-project review level. 3. Develop ways to monitor the policies of the Growth Management Element that address affordable housing, open space resources, regional growth management, and phasing of development. 4. Prepare a Resource Protection Policy that will protect sensitive lands as defined by the Chula Vista General Plan. Prepare a plan to ensure the adequate provision of water facilities within the Chula Vista Planning Area for both terminal storage and regional supply. The Growth Management Element, as drafted, focuses on public facilities and services as well as planning and environmental standards. Also included with this Element is a separate report entitled, "Absorbing Change: Managing Rate of Growth, dated November 17, 1989. That report is presented as a discussion paper of rate control as a method of growth management. It is presented to provide the Planning Commission and City Council with the pros, cons, and legal implications of rate controls. Various alternative temporary and permanent controls are discussed and evaluated. WPC 7282P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Growth Management Element PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-90-31 DATE: January 31, 1990 A. Project Setting The proposed project is the Chula Vista Growth Management Element which will be imPlemented throughout the City of Chula Vista. The project is not site specific, therefore, there is no specific environmental setting which applies to this proposal. B. Project Description The proposed Chula Vista Growth Management Element would direct and coordinate growth by requiring that development be concurrent with necessary facilities and services. To ensure this objective, a set of growth management policies have been developed. These goals include: - The timely provision of public facilities and services; - The expansion of the City's economic structure to provide for a regionally-competitive local economy; - The provision of an adequate and well-designed housing stock to meet the needs of all segments of the population; - The provision of cultural enrichment, architectural, and environmentally sensitive design, creating an aesthetically pleasing community; and The adoption of strategies to preserve natural resources and open spaces. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed Growth Management Element is compatible with and will become the newest element of the General Plan which guides the orderly development of the City of Chula Vista. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section CHUb&VI~'A -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that fire ~nd medical units respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 95% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The estimated response time is 6 minutes, and the nearest fire station is 1.5 miles away. The proposed project is in compliance with this threshold standard. 2. Police The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that p(~lice units must respond to Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of ,,5 less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls or less and maintain an average response time to all of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project is in co~Jc~a::c~ threshold standard. 3. Traffic The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that all il'.~tersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, w'!th the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during th? ?eak of the day at signalized intersections. Intersectic~. ,,,~ are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No i~tersec~ion may reach LOS "F" during the average weekoay peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that it would not adversely impact levels of service. 4. Parks/Recreation The Thresholds/Standards Policy for Parks and R,~creation acres/1,O00 population. This threshold standard applies on~ to specific residential projects, therefore, the proposed project. exempt from the threshold standard for Parks and Recreatic)n, 5. Drainage The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that storm ~a~ f!~vs and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards ,~. p~'~osed project is not subject to these requirements, since ~ is for the adoption of the City's Growth Management Element ( . no spec,~~ development project is proposed at this time. -3- 6. Sewer Review of the specific development proposals by the City will ensure that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City engineering standards. The proposed project is exempt from this threshold standard, since no specific development is proposed at this time 7. Water The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment and transmission facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The project will ensure implementation of this threshold standard for water resources since it provides policy objectives for their protection. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental effect. A negative declaration has been prepared in compliance with Section 15070 of State CEQA Guidelines. The' following is a discussion of impacts deemed to be less than significant. Potential impacts deemed to be less than significant are social and community factors. Social and Community Factor Impacts: Potential social and community factors are associated with the potential for changes in the growth rate of the City of Chula Vista through the implementation of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. This is a potential impact due to the requirement of the Growth Management Element that growth be phased concurrently with the provision of public services and facilities, especially water services and facilities. One of the critical action programs outlined in the Growth Management Element is the preparation of a plan in conjunction with the City of San Diego, County Water Authority, Otay Water District, and Sweetwater Authority ensure the provision of adequate water supply and facilities concurrent with growth. This could result in an impact to the rate of growth in Chula Vista. Social and community factor impacts are deemed to be less than significant since the potential impacts on the growth rate are anticipated to be positive impacts by requiring that adequate public services and facilities be in place prior to development. The potential impacts to the growth rate are anticipated to be negligible, since some of the action programs and implementation measures included in the Growth Management Element have been available to the City and used in the past. -4- F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects No mitigation is required since the potential social and community factor impacts have been deemed to be less than significant. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed Growth Management Element would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, since its primary objective is to allow for growth while requiring the adequate provision of services and facilities. In this respect, the proposed project could potentially have a positive impact on the quality of the natural environment and the provision of adequate facilities. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The Growth Management Element would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals since long-term goals would be achieved through the action plans set forth in this document. The action plans required by the Growth Management Element include measures to develop long-term infrastructure and public services plans, as well as phasing plans for all public and private large-scale development projects. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed Growth Management Element is not deemed to have any significant, adverse cumulative impacts, but may actually provide for positive, cumulative impacts. Positive cumulative impacts would be associated with a more integrated approach to the control of growth in Chula Vista by ensuring that facilities and services are in place prior to development. -5- 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dlrectly or indirectly. The proposed Growth Management Element is not anticipated to cause a substantial, adverse impact on human beings, and no adverse health impacts were identified in the initial study for this project. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil £ngineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents Growth Management Element of the General Plan, prepared fo~ the City of Chula Vista by Lettieri-Mc[ntyre and Associates, [nc. November 17, 1989. Chula Vista General Plan Update E[R, 1989 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7240P FOR OFFICE USE Case No. ]Zm~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~. Application Form Project No. f~ _ A, BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE~'~,A~ ~v~J~ ~u~L~'~,~N,D~j~__~..A)'"I'- ~j.<~L~J[' 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) -- Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 4. Name Of Applicant G%0~ ~Ol~ City ~,)N~ V~ : State ~. Zip 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~ ~ Address Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: X 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 X Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/R?/ - 7 - £. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* ~onsultant or Agent* 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. DATE: /2 --/~'-~? *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. C I TY 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: ~/A - v~ ~ ~,e~ North n South ~ East ~, West ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ~ Is the project area designated for conservation or opep space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~]/~ -~q-~ ~%~T,~z~L~m_] Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~]//~r {If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance 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? 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.) ~/~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools _ If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy 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: D)recto~ ot Planning or Representative Date -lO- Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. ~rainage ~'t 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? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation I,a/A~- a. What roads provide primary access to the project? 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? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. Case No. 3. Geology b~ ! ~, a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fat~lt hazards? Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geol~)gy report necessary to evaluate th~ project? 4. Soils ),1 /$% a. Are there any anticipaied adverse soii conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these ad¥~,rse 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 t~ Are there any traffic-related ncise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justif'y that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality I~ 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 X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : tlOx (NO2) X 20.0 = Particulates X 1.5 Sulfur X .78 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be gener~ted by the proposed project per:day? Solid Liquid What is the location and size of existing sewer lineS ( 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 :he public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the ad,~erse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capa~:ity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures C'ity EUn~'F~Fr orYRep~l:ative - 13 - Case No. /~ H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 prgposed facility without an iqcrease in equipment or personnel? 3. Remarks /tY~ ~ -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ~ 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? - Neighborhood ? -Community parks o 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other m~ti~atinr as part of the project adequate to serve . Neighborhood Community parks ~ 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Rmreatio~ Thresholds established by City,Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 1 4. Consideration of Final EIR-89-4M with Addendum A. BACKGROUND The Draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposals, EIR-89-4M was certified by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1989. Subsequent to that time, on July 19, 1989, and August 2, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee publicly reviewed the DEIR and FEIR. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted not to certify the FEIR and sent it back to staff for: corrections, responses to their comments, questions and concerns. As a result of the incorrect information in the FEIR and the need to respond to the comments by the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff required CIC Research, Inc. (the research firm in charge of socio-economic impact analysis) and A.D. Hinshaw and Associates to make the required changes and responses. An overview of the changes that were made to EIR-89-4M in the form of an Addendum to £IR-89-4M are included in the staff report to the Montgomery Planning Committee which is attached (Montgomery Planning Committee, Agenda Item for Meeting of January 31, 1990 3a, Consideration of Addendum to Final EIR-89-4m Palomar Trolley Center). Within Section C Discussion, of the staff report to the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff have detailed the requirements of CEQA as to the conditions under which a new EIR is required. Staff has indicated that none of the conditions apply, and therefore, an Addendum to Final EIR-89-4M has been prepared. According to Section 15164a CEQA addendums to EIR's are required if: 1. None of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3. The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. All of the three above issues apply in this case. At the January 31, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee the Committee voted {5-2) to recommend that the Final EIR be certified as being in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Montgomery Planning Committee had reviewed and considered the information in the report. WPC 7275P Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Item for Meeting of January 31, 1990 Page 1 3a. Consideration of Addendum to Final EIR-89-4M - Palomar Trolley Center A. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, on June 14, 1989, conducted a public hearing for the draft environmental impact report for Palomar Trolley Center, a 12.23 acre proposed community shopping center located south of Palomar Street and east of the Palomar Trolley Station in the Montgomery Specific Plan area of the City of Chula Vista. At the close of the public review, comments had been received from two state agencies as well as from the City Engineers and observations were made by the Planning Commission and representatives of the Resource Conservation Committee during the public hearing. On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR-89-4M and certified the document adopting the recommended CEQA Findings and mitigation monitoring program. This Final EIR was referred to the Montgomery Planning Committee for consideration. The Montgomery Planning Committee publicly reviewed the DEIR and considered the FEIR at meetings in on July 19, 1989 and August 2, 1989. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted not to certify the FEIR and sent it back to staff for: corrections, responses to their comments, questions, and concerns. As a result of the incorrect information in the FEIR and the need to respond to the comments by the Montgomery Planning Committee, staff required CIC Research, Inc. (the research firm in charge of socio-economic impact analysis) and A.D. Hinshaw and Associates to make the required changes and responses. This information is in the form of an Addendum to EIR-89-4M and is attached to this staff report. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Montgomery Planning Committee has reviewed and considered the information in the report, and adopt the recommended CEQA Findings and mitigation monitoring program. C. DISCUSSION Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act, which sets the requirements as to when an Addendum to an EIR is to be prepared specifically states "The Lead Agency {in this case, the City of Chula Vista) shall prepare an addendum to an EIR" if: Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Items for Meeting of January 31, 1990 Page 2 None of the conditions described in Section 1§162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; {a) Section 15162 discusses subsequent changes proposed in the project showing new significant environmental impacts not previously considered, (b) substantial changes occurring with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken, {c) or new information about the project becomes available which shows impacts previously identified are more significant than previously thought. As none of the conditions listed above apply and, therefore, an Addendum to Final EIR-89-4M has been prepared. Concerns raised by members of the Montgomery Planning Committee regarding EIR-89-4M that have been addressed in the Addendum fall into three major areas: {1) Inaccuracies and/or incorrect data; {2) Methodology - lack of clarity and/or inconsistencies in socio-economic research; and {3) Incomplete information. Specific actions taken to deal with and correct these are as follows: (1) Inaccuracies and/or incorrect data Specific examples of inaccuracies and/or incorrect data in FEIR-89-4M sited by members of the Montgomery Planning Committee at their meetings of July 19, 1989 and August 2, 1989 included: maps and tables that indicated the wrong locations, incorrect addresses and/or incorrect names for various retail centers, maps that did not have a scale and did not indicate "no scale," an incomplete list of persons contacted within the City of Chula Vista staff that were contacted to obtain information in EIR process. Pacific Scene, in a letter to the Planning Department dated November 3, 1989, also stated that in several places in the Final EIR "estimated retail sales information" was based on 1993 projections rather than 1991 projections and that their proposal was to complete the project by 1991. As a result the "estimated retail sales information was corrected to reflect 1991 projections. All of the Montgomery Planning Committee's and Pacific Scene's specific comments regarding inaccuracies and incorrect data were forwarded to A. D. Hinshaw and Associates {as the primary consultant). These have been corrected in either the form of correction pages, response to comments or in the text of the new socio-economic survey. (2) Methodology: Lack of Clarity or Inconsistencies in Socio-Economic Research Specific comments of Montgomery Planning Committee members regarding the Methodology used by CIC Research included such concerns as: the methodology should have included retail uses permitted by conditional use permits such as those in Palomar Commerce Center, and Bayview Business Center. These uses are comparable, and therefore, the methodology appeared contradictory and confusing. Montgomery Planning Committee Agenda Items for Meeting of January 31, 1990 Page 3 Planning staff took the following steps: i. Requested an in-depth review of the methodology and findings by the Director of Finance. This has occurred, changes as he required have been made to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Finance. ii. Requested removal of information extraneous to a clear, understandable methodology which has occurred. (Technical explanation of methodology is included in appendices.) iii. Required amplification and clarification of the purpose of the socio-economic impact which is "to evaluate current market conditions and identify any socio-economic impacts that may result in physical deterioration of nearby commercial centers/buildings due to an oversupply of retail commercial space caused by development of the subject property. iv. Undertook some in-house data field checks and computer runs of businesses included in the survey to verify that businesses included in the survey were legal businesses. v. City required expanded methodology section elaborating and detailing procedures used and steps taken in obtaining information and reasoning. vi. Retail uses that occurred under the conditional use permit process were included within the Montgomery Specific Plan area and retail uses that occurred under CUP's outside of the Montgomery Area were included. {3) Incomplete Information Montgomery Planning Committee members requested complete responses to comments, which did not occur at the public hearing. The "response to comments section" has been expanded to more fully respond to concerns that were raised during the comment/hearing period. WPC 7164P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-2M, Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 12.22 acre parcel of land, located on the southerly side of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard, from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial," on the plan diagram of the Montgomery Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The subject request is a component of a joint application from Pacific Scene, Inc., for redesignation of a certain 12.22 acre site, located on the southerly side of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard, from "Research & Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile & Office Commercial," and the rezoning of the said site from "M52" to "C-C". The approval of the redesignation request (General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan), which is the subject matter of this report, is prerequisite to the consideration of the proposed rezoning, PCZ-88-J{M). B. RECOmmENDATION 1. Consider EIR-89-4M, and its addendum during the review of the substantive project, GPA-88-2M. 2. Adopt a motion to deny GPA-88-2M. MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopted a motion to certify EIR-89-4M. 2. Adopt a motion to deny GPA-88-2M. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing Site Characteristics The subject site is vacant, generally rectangular in shape, and contains approximately 12.22 acres. It is bounded by the SDG&E right-of-way on the south side, the MTDB right-of-way on the west, and Palomar Street on the north, which provides the site with approximately 1,347 feet of street frontage. Until recently, the site has been seasonally used for vegetable farming. 2. Adjacent General Plan designations (please see Exhibit A). The Plan diagram of the Montgomery Specific Plan/General Plan designates the project site as Research & Limited Industrial. The adjacent designations are as follows: North: Retail Commercial South: Parks & Open Space East: Mercantile & Office Commercial West: Institutional (Trolley station) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 26 1990 Page 2 3. Adjacent zoning and land use (please see Exhibit B). North: C-C-P Retail Commercial South: S94 SDG&E Right-of-way East: C36 Retail Commercial West: S94 SDG&E Right-of-way/Trolley station Portion of the southeasterly quadrant of East Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, includes the MTDB Trolley Station as well as the SDG&E right-of-way. D. ANALYSIS The Planning Department has completed its review of the proposed amendment, and its survey of the lands in question. The following findings are predicated upon this review and survey. 1. The proposed amendment would increase the allocation of Montgomery territory to commercial use by about 6%, and would thereby augment the Community's subst2ntial land-use imbalance. According to the rule-of-thumb generally applied by city planners, Montgomery's 25,000 people should be served by about 50 acres of commercially-zoned land. It is presently served by nearly four times this acreage. {Please see attached Exhibit C, a revised excerpt of page 24, Part One {The Survey), Montgomery Specific Plan), and attached Exhibit D, entitled "Profile of Commercially-Zoned Territory in the Montgomery Community." 2. Commercial overzoning produces major urban problems, such as commercial-center antiquation and redundancy. This production is very noticeable in Montgomery, where the large modern centers have flourished, but the older, narrower strips along Broadway and Third Avenue have declined. Actually, the newer commercial strips of Montgomery share the economic problems associated with the older commercial areas, and present a general picture of lack-luster trade and vacant stores. 3. While commercial overzoning creates marginal uneconomic commercial uses, it does much more. It stimulates a general decline in the urban form, and reduces the overall quality of townscape planning. Of even greater significance, overcommercialization consumes land which should be allocated to other uses--residential, industrial, recreational, or civic. 4. The Community's need for the mercantile-commercial project proposed for the southerly side of Palomar Street has not been established by the applicant. The new mercantile-commercial center on the northerly side of Palomar Street, at Broadway, and the nearby mercantile centers amply meet the commercial needs of local Chula Vista residents. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 3 5. As a general rule the price of commercial land is substantially higher than that of industrial territory. This circumstance has led to a Statewide effort on the part of developers and land owners to rezone industrial property to commercial. Commercial overzoning and a shortage of good industrial land have resulted. The Montgomery Community, recently planned as a balanced urban settlement, cannot afford this disorder. The City of Chula Vista's need to promote local employment through industrial development is fully supported by the recently-adopted Chula Vista General Plan, and is, therefore, fundamental policy of this municipality. The General Plan is based upon original surveys and research, but its conclusions and proposals are congruous with those of the Montgomery Specific Plan. 6. The proposed land-use plan, submitted by the applicant, also raises concern. It calls for the allocation of several sites to "f~st food" restaurants. These establishments abound in Montgomery, and, while undoubtedly popular and economic, they have not generally improved the quality of land Use and townscape planning in adjacent areas. Planning in the 1980's has been confronted by the over-development of fast food restaurants, as planning in prior decades was confronted by a superfluity of service stations. These commercial trends do not traditionally produce order, amenity, or environmental quality. 7. Palomar Street, between I-5 and Broadway, has a serious peak-hour traffic problem. The nearby "T" junction of Orange Avenue and Palomar Street is also characterized by traffic difficulties. The commercialization of the 12 acres in question would complicate as well as increase traffic in these areas. E. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment would increase the overcommercialization and commercial-center redundancy of the Montgomery Community, and would refute the planned industrialization of the South Chula Vista Area. It would also constitute a precedent for the commercialization of other industrial lands in Montgomery. The said amendment, furthermore, would increase the traffic problems at Palomar Street and I-5, and Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. WPC 7201 P ANITA STREET I~ LOW-MED. DE.S. ,ES.,~-6 da,ac) GPA--BS--2M __ MED. DENS. RES.(6-11 dulac) CHANGE FROM ~RESEARCH & LIMITED ~HIGH DENS. RES.(13-26 da/ac) INDUSTRIAL' TO ~MERCANTILE & ~ HIGH DENS. RES.(1e-27 da/ac) OFFICE COMMERCIAL" MERCANTILE & OFF. COMM.  1 O0 200 ~ .~*,~co~. ....s~..c~. o.~. m m EXHIBIT A ~ o ~ RESEARCH & LIMITED IND. City of Chula Vista-Planning De~t.-12/2/88 C-C I-L-P " Ret. Comm. RU2 Palomar Cc n erce Center C3 6 Commercial Center Trolley Squar~ ~,_p Comm. JECT AREA C-T-P Truck Crop~ , ~ Truck Crops sfd/Ind. SDG & E R.O (truck crops) RV15 C36 MARSAT CT r ' ' RU29 ' ' M54 RMH 10 ANITA STREET Existing Zoning I~A-E~B- !M and CHANGE FROM "RESEARCH & LIMITED Land Use INDUSTRIAL" TO "MERCANTILE & OFFICE COMMERCIAL" ~ EXHI?-IT 4OO City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-1212/88 EXHIBIT C Table 7. Comparative Commercial Zoning Analysis City of Chula Vista/Montgomery - ' Chula Vista (excluding 14ontgomery) Montgomery Acres % Acres % · A. Total Commercial Classified Territory 729 100% 195 100% B, '~Territory Develo~'d with'Commercial US~s 461 63% 137 71% C. Territory Developed with Non-Commercial Uses 159 22% 50 25% D. Vacant Commercial~ Territory 109 15% 8 4% {Acreages are rounded) E. Conclusion: 35% of the commercially-zoned territory of the City of Chula Vista, including Montgomery, or 323 acres, are either vacant or devoted to the accommodation of non-commercial uses. F. The city planner'~ traditional rule-of- thumb calls for the allocation of 1.5 to 2.0 acres of land to the commercial service of 1,O00 population. At this rate, the estimated 120,000 population of Chula Vista should be served by 180 to 240 acres of commercially-zoned territory in lieu of the existing 924 acres.* *Standards of the rul~-of-thumb: Neighborhood Commercial 0.5 acres/1,O00 capita Community Commercial 0.5 acres/1,O00 capita Regional Commercial 0.4 acres/1,O00 capita Office, Highway, Visitor, Heavy Commercial 0.1 to 0.6 acres/1,O00 capita Certain planning 'authorities have addressed the matter of the acreage required to provide combined neighborhood and community level commercial goods and services to 1,O001persons and have developed the following formulae: Gallion & Eisner, The Urban Pattern, 3rd ed. 1.00 Ac./1,OOOipersons William H. Claire, Handbook on Urban Planninq 0.92 Ac./1,OOO!persons F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning 0.75 Ac./1,O00 persons Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook 1.08 Ac./1,O00 persons De China & Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria 1.05 Ac. to 1.10 Ac./1,O00 persons WPC 6143P EXHIBIT D August 7, 1989 Profile of Commercially-Zoned Territory in the Montgomery Community 1. Gross Area of Community 2,240 acres 2. Net Area of Community 1,792 acres 3. 5% of Net Acreage (City Planner's rule-of-thumb 90 acre.s for the maximum allocation of territory to commercial use) 4. Commercially-zoned Acreage 195 acres 5. Percentage of Community Zoned for Commercial Use 10.9% 6. Industrially-zoned Acreage 432 acres 7. Vacant Industrially-zoned Acreage 79 acres WPC 6596P McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG ~,cH^~o ^.~CHULMAN Febr ary 7 1990 PERSONAL DELIVERY Chairman Robert Tugenberg and Planning Commission Members City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92110 Re: Palomax Trolley General Plan Amendment (Meeting of February 14, 1990) Dear Chairman Tugenberg and Commission Members: This firm represents Pacific Scene, the developer of the proposed Palomar Trolley Center ("Project") located in Montgomery. Pacific Scene has applied for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 12.2 acres from "Limited Industrial to Mercantile and Office Commercial". Pacific Scene proposes to construct a commercial center, anchored by a major grocery store, on the property. Staff recommends denial of the proposed redesignation due a concern tha't Montgomery is commercially "overzoned". We believe that adequate evidence exists to support the redesignation of this property to commercial based upon appropriate planning principals, demand for commercial services and the benefits which will be derived by the City. Montgomery is a community with a significant amount of "strip commercial". Strip commercial zoning was a result of planning decisions made by the County of San Diego many years prior to the annexation of the area into the City. The position of staff that Montgomery too much commercial fails to recognize the lack of commercial parcels of ten acres ca more in size with adequate dimensions to support the construction of a grocery store or other major "anchor tenant". The marketing policies of many national retailers require that their stores be located in centers with such major anchor tenants. These Chairman Robert Tugenb~rg and Planning Commission Members February 7, 1990 ~ Page 2 national retailers do not have stores in Montgomery. Accordingly, the amount of commercial acreage in Montgomery should not be the issue but rather the size and availability of parcels of land large enough to attract major anchor tenants with other retail uses. We suggest that the property should be designated commercial due to its frontage on Palomar Street, its location as a "gateway" to the community and the surrounding land uses. You will note from the staff report, commercial uses abutt the property to the north and east with the trolley station directly to the west. To the south, separated by a green belt is property zoned M52 and M54 which will take its primary access from Anita Street and Jayken Way. We suggest that the orientation of this industrial land, to the south of the SDG&E right-of-way, should not be used as a reason to create more industrial land which will be oriented to the north towards the existing commercial uses on Palomar Street. Furthermore, the activities of the trolley station are people oriented and more appropriate adjacent to retail commercial uses rather than an industrial park with the resulting truck traffic, warehousing and other industrial activities. The "green belt" created by the SDG&E easement to the south acts as a natural buffer between commercial and industrial development and should be recognized and preserved by the City as opposed to allowing encroachment of industrial uses into an established commercial node. As noted in the Environmental Impact Report, the development of the Project may create a synergy which will act as a regional draw for the Montgomery commercial area. We suggest that such a redesignation of the property is consistent with the existing land uses regardless of the use proposed by Pacific Scene. As stated in the Montgomery Specific Plan, retail uses are the largest employers in the community. The deyelopment of the commercial center will provide a significant number of new jobs for the community and provide sales taxes which would not otherwise be received by the City. We recognize that your Commission is not necessarily concerned about the need of the City to generate revenues, however, we believe that Montgomery has a significant amount of existing industrial land which is appropriate for industrial uses. In addition, the City, through its Redevelopment Agency, has attempted to direct new industrial development to the Otay Valley area in an effort to redevelop that region. We suggest that the additional benefits provided to Chairman Robert Tugenberg and Planning Commission Members February 7, 1990 Page 3 the City by a commercial designation of the property and the recognition that ex/sting industrial land in Otay Valley or Montgomery will meet the industrial needs of the City, that this property should be redesignated for a commercial use. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with your Commission. Should you or any member of your staff have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles R. Gill McDONAI.D, HECHT & SOLBERG CRG/mq cc: Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney Robert Leiter, Planning Director Sid Morris, Assistant to City Manager Mr. Dan Pass Ms. Barbara Reid Mr. Jim Moxham Mr. Mark Rowson Mr. Richard Miller City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-J(M); Consideration to rezone 12.22 acres from County M-52 to City C-C-P - Pacific Scene A. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of 2/14/90 and involves a request to rezone 12.22 acres from County M-52 (Limited Industrial) to City C-C-P (Central Commercial/Precise Plan). The property is located on the southerly side of Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. A companion request, GPA-88-2M, to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial" is the preceding item on the agenda. At the January 31, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Committee voted (4-3) to deny the rezoning from M-52 to C-C-P. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Montgomery Specific Plan, GPA-88-2M, it is recommended that you deny the rezoning to C-C-P on this basis that such zoning would be inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan designation of "Research & Limited Industrial." 2. If the Planning Commission supports the amendment from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial", it would be appropriate to adopt a motion recommending that Council either: a. Approve PCZ-88-J(M) rezonin9 12.22 acres from M-52 to C-C-P, or b. Defer action on the rezonin9 until consideration of Narborside B, Part II, of which this property is a part. This area is scheduled for a subcommunity forum on May 30, 1990, and public hearing before the Committee on July 18, 1990. C. DISCUSSION The discussion and analysis contained in the companion staff report on the proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan GPA-88-2M, is incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Planning Department found that the proposed amendment and rezoning would increase the overcommercialization and commercial-center redundancy of the Montgomery Community, and would refute the planned industrialization of the South Chula Vista Area. It would also constitute a precedent for the commercialization of other industrial lands in Montgomery. Furthermore, it would increase the traffic problems at Palomar Street and I-5, and Palomar Street and Orange Avenue. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 28, 1990 Page 2 If the Planning Commission chooses to support the proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan from "Research and Limited Industrial" to "Mercantile and Office Commercial", we have offered two alternative recommendations on the rezoning for the Committee's consideration. The first would address the rezoning immediately, while the second would defer action until it could be considered in conjunction with the balance of Harborside B, Part II, in July of this year. WPC 7273P I-L-P Ret. Comm. RU2! Palomsr, ce Center C3 6 .\ Commercial Center Trolley Square Comm. SUBJECT AREA C-T-P Truck Crops Truck M52 ~ Truck Crops SDG & E (truck crops) 4 nV15 C3~ ~ MARSAT ¢~- ~' ' RU29 ~ ' M54 RM~ 10 STREET and Land Use CHANGE FROM 'RESEARCH & LIMITED INDUSTRIAL" TO ~MERCANTILE & OFFICE COMMERCIAL" ~ ~ EZHIEIT B 0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS ILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ON AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Khour¥ Enterpr±$es, a Cal±forn±a L±m±ted Partnersh±p Pacific Scene, Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Kaoru Iwashita Roy Shiqeru Iwashita Lily Iwashita Mariko I. Sato Minoru C. Iwashita '' Toshiko Asakawa 2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. All ownership in Item 1 is by trusts for the benefit of Tawfiq N. ~houry and his immediate family. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (]) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) ~ic~u~ef?_e_d~as:' "Any in. di,v!dua], firm, c. opart~, joint ventu~ )~'and a~v ~h~eerrnt~nnn°F~an~z~a~,!°n~'_~c°-rp°rat]°n', estate, trust, receiver, s ndi · . - . . - .... ~, ~,~y ~nu county, c~t muni ' ' . . Y cate, Ipolitica] subd~wsion, or an', other .......... ~.._ ~., .c.]pal~ty, d~str~ct or other ~ J ~ ~,~uv u~ uumumF)aclon acting as a unit." (N~OT_E: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~P~k~I_~FI~4scE~E, INC. ~ ~lg~:~e ct app,icant/date WPC 0701P r~nt or type name of applicant