HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/08/10 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, August 10, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of June 8, July 13 and July 27, 1988
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: PCC-89-5 Conditional Use Permit: Request to
expand Humphrey's Mortuary at 855 Broadway -
Gardner Stafford Properties
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-89-3 Variance: Request to locate parking
in exterior side yard setback at 495 Smith Avenue -
Dr. Nick Gustaro
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-23M Conditional Use Permit: Request to
expand a mini-warehouse facility at 340 Naples
Street - Naples Street Investors Ltd. (Continued)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10M: Consideration of Draft Part Three,
The "Implementation Program" of the Montgomery
Specific Plan
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 17, 1988
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 1
1, PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-5; request to expand
Humphrey's Mortuary at 855 Broadway - Gardner Stafford
Properties
A. BACKGROUND
The request is to expand Humphrey's Mortuary at the southeast corner of
Broadway and Sierra Way by adding 3,250 sq. ft. of office space and
converting existing space to additional enclosed parking.
The project is a class l(e)(2) exemption from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-89-5, to expand Humphrey's Mortuary at
855 Broadway subject to the following conditions:
1. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Landscape Architect. The plan shall address the upgrading of
the paved areas to the south and east of the building with plant
material and/or enhanced paving.
2. The full-width of the alley shall be paved with PCC per City standard
along the rear property line.
The following are Code requirements and are listed for information only:
1. Sewer and traffic signal fees based on the square footage of the
expansion will be assessed when the building permit is issued.
2. A construction permi* is required to perform any work in the
right-of-way (including the alley).
3. Improvements required to be done in conjunction with the building
permit include, but are not limited to:
a. Curb and gutter
b. Reconstruct curb return on corner to provide a 30-foot radius
c. Sidewalk ramps at the corner and at alley returns
d. Street light on Broadway at south property line
4. The project must comply with Title 24 Handicapped Regulations.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North C-T Plant nursery
South C-T Veterans thrift store
East R-1 Single family
West C-T Commercial
Existin9 site characteristics
The site totals 24,900 sq. ft., with 160 ft. of frontage on Broadway and
156 ft. of frontage on Sierra Way. The existing single-story structure
contains 9,700 sq. ft. of floor area. On-site parking consists of a
27-space tandem "staging" area to the south of the building, a two-car
garage off the alley to the rear, six employee-only spaces on the
northeast portion of the site, and a partially covered driveway/staging
area on the north side of the building. On-street parking consists of
seven angled spaces on Sierra Way and six parallel 2-hr. spaces on
Broadway.
Proposed use
The proposal involves a second-story addition above the rear portion of
the building -- the existing "footprint" will remain the same. The
addition would involve 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area for offices, storage
and an employee lounge. The area under the addition which presently
contains offices and storage would be converted to accommodate five
additional enclosed parking spaces. The total floor area would increase
from 9,700 to 12,950 sQ. ft. Two additional employees may be added in the
future, but there is no plan to increase staff at this time.
D. ANALYSIS
The proposal is consistent with the existing use of the site and the
design of the present structure. Parking will be increased by five
enclosed spaces, and employee parking needs will increase by at most two
spaces in the future -- resulting in an overall improvement in the on-site
parking situation.
The site is generally well landscaped with the exception of the paved
areas to the south and east of the building. The City Landscape Architect
has recommended a condition which would require the submittal of a plan to
upgrade the landscaping in those areas, to include plant material and/or
enhanced paving.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 3
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The building expansion will allow the mortuary to increase their
level of service to the community.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The expansion will improve on-site parking and the provision of
additional landscaping will enhance the appearance of the site.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
Compliance with all applicable codes, conditions and regulations will
be required prior t t.e issuance of development permits for the
project.
4. That the grantin§ of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The use is consistent with the thorough commercial General Plan
designation.
WPC 5437P/2652P
/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLIC~=12ii'
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNIN~
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.
John W. Gardner, Jr.
Mary Leu Gardner
Hazel Stafford Sandon
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Same as above
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than l~ of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
John W. Gardner, Jr.
Mary Leu Gardner
Hazel Stafford Sandon
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.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, ?partnership, joint venture, association,
soc-B-E-(~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
ffatur~ 'of applicant/date ~
WPC 0701P i~/John W. Gardner, Jr.
A-ll0 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission Page 1
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-89-3; request to locate parking in
ekterior sideyard setback at 495 Smith Avenue - Dr.
Nick Gustaro
A. BACKGROUND
1. The request is to locate parking within the exterior sideyard setback
along Smith Avenue in conjunction with a proposal to construct a
two-story office building at the northeast corner of "H" Street and
Smith Avenue.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny ZAV-89-3.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-2 Single-family
South C-C Shopping Center
East C-C-D Commercial
West C-C-D Commercial
Existing site characteristics.
The site is a rectangular, 7,481 sq. ft. parcel with 60 ft. of frontage on
"H" Street and 125 ft. of frontage on Smith Avenue. The property is zoned
C-C-D (central commercial with design control) and presently contains a
single-family dwelling.
Proposed requests.
The proposal would establish parking within 1.5 ft. of the property line
along Smith Avenue. This is a reduction of 8.5 ft. from the 10 ft.
setback required by Code. The plan is to construct a 3,318 sq. ft. two-
story office building and 14 off-street parking spaces on the site. The
14 required parking spaces are based on the proposal for a 1,600 sq. ft.
dental office on the ground floor (1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area),
and 1,?18 sq. ft. of general offices on the second floor (1 space per 300
sq. ft. of floor area).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
The granting of a variance requires a finding of unique hardship peculiar
to the property. In this case, the applicant states that the property is
a corner lot with an exterior sideyard setback which reduces the ability
to develop the site and thus reduces the value of the site in relation to
adjacent parcels.
It is true that corner parcels with two street frontages are subject to an
exterior sideyard setback which is greater than the sideyard setback which
would apply to a lot interior to the block. But this circumstance applies
to every corner parcel in the City. Whatever disadvantage this may
represent in terms of developability versus the advantage of corner
parcels in terms of exposure and accessibility is or should be known and
assessed in any valuation/purchase of commercial property. It is not a
unique hardship.
The applicant further states that the two parking spaces in the setback
are only required because the dental office is assessed by Code at a
greater parking ratio than general office use, and that parking would be
adequate if the entire building was devoted to general offices. The
proposal calls for 1600 sq. ft. or approximately 48% of the office space
to be allocated for dental use. The City's parking standards were amended
several years ago in recognition of the fact that medical and dental
offices generate on average a much greater demand for parking than general
office use.
Most importantly, the Code requires any parking area for more than five
vehicles to be screened by a 10-foot-wide landscape strip in order to
soften and obscure the visual impact of asphalt and automobiles. In the
present case, the 10-ft. setback and lO-ft, screening requirement are
identical. The lO-ft, dimension is considered the minimum depth necessary
to achieve the screening in an aesthetic manner. The proposal, on the
other hand, would establish a landscape strip with a depth of only 1 ft.,
which is totally inadequate to provide proper screening of the parking
area.
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The site is a level, rectangular, 7,481 sq. ft. corner lot with no
unique circumstance or hardship not shared by other corner lots
subject to exterior sideyard setbacks.
-2-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 3
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
The granting of the variance would represent a special privilege not
enjoyed by other corner lots in the same zone or vicinity.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
The granting of the variance would result in inadequate screening of
the parking area, and a negative visual impact on adjacent properties.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Approval of the variance would be contrary to the aesthetic values
embodied in the Chula Vista General Plan.
WPC 5431P/O426P
-3-
~F TFTF TF SF TF TF SF SF SF SF SF 'rF
I
,,H. ~ S T.
q,o -cr
"' I CHULA VISTA
L ........ ~ ~_- ~ ~..~'1 SHOPPING CTR.
I
(~ ~1 'LOCATOR
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE': COMP I-'--][, L
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEt~NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
~/~List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any per'son 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.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-'6-~-F~'T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combinatio a.~t~g as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as nece~ssary.~~ .~/~~
WPC 0701P
A-110 ~ Print or type name Of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-23M; request to expand a
mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples Street -
Naples Street Investors, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
The City Council, at their meeting of April 26, 1988, considered an appeal
of a denial of a major use permit to expand an existing mini-warehouse at
340 Naples Street and was presented with revised plans and elevations
enhancing the architecture of the proposed expansion. Council voted to
continue the hearing on the appeal until the Montgomery Planning Committee
had reviewed the new architectural design and had an opportunity to
comment.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 1, 1988, voted
to continue the hearing on the Council referral until July 20, 1988, in
order to allow staff to formulate proposed conditions of approval and
findings for approval of the major use permit (staff's recommendation to
the Committee was for denial of the major use permit, therefore,
conditions of approval were not available). The item was automatically
continued to August 3 when the meeting of July 20 was cancelled. At the
Montgomery Planning Committee meeting of August 3, the project was
reevaluated with the Committee voting 6-1 for approval. In revising their
previous decisions, the Committee concluded that the revised design
addressed the bulk of their concerns and provided a good transition
between the commercial to the east and the residential to the west.
An Initial Study, IS-88-33M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
January 20, 1988. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that
there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that
the Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-33M.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request,
PCC-88-23M, to expand a mini-warehouse facility located at 340 Naples
Street subject to the following conditions:
a. The proposed expansion including all signs shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Design Review Committee.
b. The applicant shall provide two on-site fire hydrants, the type
and location subject to review and approval by the City Fire
Marshal. Details of existing fire protection systems shall also
be provided for review by the Fire Marshal.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 2
c. Any expansion or alteration to the proposed miniwarehouse
project which exceeds the height shown on the approved site plan
and exterior elevations shall be subject to approval of a
modification of the major use permit.
d. Open storage of any materials or vehicles of any type is
expressly prohibited.
e. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan prepared by a
licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor in
accordance with the City Landscape Manual for review and
approval by the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping shall be
installed in accordance with the approved plan and maintained in
good condition at all times. Failure to maintain required
landscaping in good condition shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the major use permit.
The following list of items are required under the authority of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code:
a. A construction permit will be required for any work performed in
the public right-of-way.
b. Required public improvements shall include, but not be limited
to: paving, curb and gutter, a street light and a driveway
approach.
c. Sewer and traffic signal fees are assessed at issuance of
building permits.
d. A minimum 20 foot wide roadway for fire access shall be provided
per UFC 10.207(e).
e. Provide a turnaround for fire apparatus at the east property
line per UFC 10.207h.
f. Provide two AIOBC rated fire extinguishers so travel distance
does not exceed 75 feet.
C. DISCUSSION
The applicant, Naples Street Investors Ltd., currently owns a
mini-warehouse storage facility at 350 Naples Street directly behind the
proposed project site at 340 Naples Street. The major use permit
application proposes to expand the mini-warehouse facility by demolishing
three existing single-family dwellings to construct three two-story
mini-warehouse buildings, one containing an office and caretakers unit.
The project site lies within a C-36 general commercial zone, which permit
mini-warehouses upon approval of a major use permit. Both the original
facility and the proposed expansion lie within the jurisdiction of the
Montgomery Specific Plan.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 3
Revised plans and elevations submitted to the Planning Department on May
25 show that the proposed expansion has been reduced from three two-story
mini-warehouse buildings to single-story structures, with the exception of
the caretaker's residence placed on a second story on the west side of the
building facing Naples Street. The architectural treatment and the
reduction in bulk and scale are significant improvements over the previous
proposal.
The roof over the office and caretaker's residence is shown with royal
blue roof tile matching the roof treatment of the adjacent commercial
buildings. The length of the building facing Naples Street is shown with
wood fascia and trim to break up the monotony of the long windowless wall
and create interest in the building.
The change in architecture and scaling down the building bulk were
instrumental to the Montgomery Planning Committee in making the expansion
acceptable. The Committee also considered the other commercial land uses
allowed within the C-36 zone and concluded that expansion of the warehouse
activity was a better alternative.
D. FINDINGS
Findings for approval of the major use permit are listed as follows:
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed expansion of an existing mini-warehouse facility as
proposed will provide a buffer between commercial and residential
areas, while providing an architectural link between the two land
uses.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed expansion of an existing mini-warehouse facility as
proposed is in keeping with a bulk and scale complementary to the
neighboring residential areas, and as such will not be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
With approval of a major use permit for the existing mini-warehouse
facility as well as the expansion, the proposed mini-warehouse use
complies with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code
for such use.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 4
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
Although the Planning and Design Proposals (page 16(f)) of the newly
adopted Montgomery Specific Plan discourages the proliferation of
mini-warehouses within Montgomery, the proposed project is an
exception. The requested major use permit would not authorize the
establishment of a new mini-warehouse use on the subject premises,
but would merely sanction the expansion and comprehensive upgrading
of an existing facility. This expansion and upgrading would
substantially improve the mini-warehouse's visual and functional
relationships, and improve its economic potential.
WPC 5440P
COMMERCIAL CENTER
PROJECT
COMMERCIAL CENTER
APARTMENTS ~'~" ~*
~ (~ COMMERCIAL CENTER
\
~,SI"N~'LE F~AMI~.Y F~SIE~EN'"~AL \COMMERcIA
\ MOBILE HOME PARK
APARTMENTS
Mini-Warehouse Facility I
Expansion ~LOCATOR
'F Naples Street /PCC-88-23M
L Investors, Inc, ~340 Naples Street ·
~ ' r ' ' negat e declaration
PROJECT NAME: Naples Street Public Storage
PROJECT LOCATION: 340 Naples Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: Naples Street Investors Ltd.
CASE NO: IS 88-33M DATE: January 20, 1988
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of three, level, rectangular lots with a total
area of 21,252 square feet. At present each lot contains one single
family dwelling; two mature trees are located on the lots, one pepper tree
and one Dutch Elm each approximately 30-35 feet in height.
Surrounding uses include single family dwellings to the west, a K Mart
department store to the north, a commercial center to the east, and a
mobile home park to the south.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of demolition of the single family dwellings
and construction of three 2-story miniwarehouse buildings totaling 23,290
square feet. The expansion would include expanding an existing building'
by doubling the first floor area of the existing miniwarehouse at the
southern boundary of the adjacent parcel, and constructing a second
story. An additional 2-story storage building would be constructed 24
feet south of the expanded building consisting of 10,680 square feet. A
smaller 2-story building would be added south of that, and would be
parallel to Naples Street, setback approximately lO feet from the south
property boundary. An office and caretakers unit would be included in the
smaller southernmost building. Three parking spaces would be provided for
the office and managers unit.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed miniwarehouse expansion complies with the C-36 general
commercial zone in effect for the area. The Montgomery Specific Plan in
effect for the area designates the property as Mercantile and Office
Commercial. Although the proposed miniwarehouse use is not incompatible
with this land use designation, it does not conform to the Planning and
Design Proposals in the Montgomery Specific Plan p.16(f) which states that
additional miniwarehouse facilities should be discouraged, since
Montgomery is currently overburdened with too many miniwarehouses and
surface storage lots.
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section CHU[~ VI~'
.: C( C(
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Land Use
As was mentioned previously, the proposed miniwarehouse expansion
would not be consistent with the Planning and Design Proposals within
the Montgomery Specific Plan p.16(f), which state that planning for
the Montgomery area should entail the limitation of new storage
'-facilities within the community, as there are now too many
miniwarehouses and surface-storage lots within the area. This does
not, however, constitute a significant and adverse environmental
effect, in that the use is not clearly inconsistent with the
Mercantile and Commercial plan designation, but reflects a general
overabundance of that use within the area.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The proposed miniwarehouse expansion would be constructed within an
area which is urban in nature and was previously developed and,
therefore, will not degrade the quality of the environment since it
does not create adverse environmental impacts which are significant.
2. The proposed miniwarehouse expansion is not clearly inconsistent upon
short- or long-term environmental goals for the area.
3. The expansion of a miniwarehouse facility contains no adverse
environmental impacts which are cumulative in nature.
4. The proposed miniwarehouse project will not cause substantial adverse
effects upon human beings.
F. 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
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: William G. Moises, AIA
2650 Camino del Rio North #104
San Diego, CA 92108
"" (7-( -, C"(
-3-
2. Documents
1) Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code
2) Montgomery Specific Plan, 1988'
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.
~~A~ COORD I NATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
WPC 4742P/O175P
~. city of chula vista planning department CII
~- environmental review section CHUL
FOR OFFICE
Case No.
Fee ~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
i
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE NAPLES STREET PUBLIC STORAGE
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
340 Naples Street, Chula Vista~ California
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 619-050-39/619-050-64
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construct three two (2) story buildinqs to be used
as mini-storage units & caretaker's office which will coincide with exsitin~
units at rear of Dro_oe~rty. ~ ~q ~ pl~
4. Name of Applicant NAPLES STREET TNVE~TOP~, !imP.
Address 2650 Camino del Rio N-. ~104 Phone 296-8718
City San Diego State CA Zip 92108
5. Name Of Preparer/Agent William G. Moises, A.I.A.
Address 2650 Camino del Rio N.~ #104 Phone 296-8718
City San Dieqo State CA Zip 92108
Relation to Applicant Consultant
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
~7-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
Photos of Site & Biological Study
,-~- Site Plan Archaeological Survey
Parcel Map Setting
Precise Plan __Tentative Subd. Map __Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
l. Land Area: sq. footage 21,252 or acreage
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
'~ Complete this section if project is residential..
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c, Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density {DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Commercial
b. F]00r area 23,260 Height of structure(s) 19'0" max.
c. Type of construction used in the structure Wood Frame, Gyp. Board,
~ Tnt~riors - Exterior: Stucco, Metal doors
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Entry to existing &
proposed new addition directly from Naples Street
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided ~hr~
f. Estimated number of employees per shift Ywo , Number of
shifts 1 Total twn
g. Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis of estimate
10 customers per day enterinq into existinq storaqe park.
With addition, should increase to approximately 30
customers per day.
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate None
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings None
j. Hours of operation Storaqe Area: 7:00 AM to 7 PM Office: 9AM-5PM
k. Type of exterior lighting General area lighting
I
f project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
N/A
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated __
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? None
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 130 cub±c yards
c. How much area {sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 8,850
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill 8 ±nches
Average depth of fill 4 inches
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) GeneraZ l±ghting and power for use
storage umits, office area and managers unit.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project '
{sq. ft. or acres) 10,912 sq. ft. or 51%
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. O£fice manaqement and bookkeeping
nnl y
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? None
7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? Approximately 30 per day.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Widenin~ of Naples Street with driveway, curb, gutter, sidewalk
add landscaped areas.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? No
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Drainage to public facilities and Naples Street.
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? None
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. 2 - 35 ft. h±qh Dutch elm and
one 30 ft high pepper. Trees to be removed and 25 gallon trees will
be planted in front set-back facing street.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? None
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? No
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. ~hree ~mmll resi~entqal units. ~ are fenwal units & one
is used as caretakers livln~ ?arters and office for public storage units
at r~r nf prn~r~y, tree ~te Plan]
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Commercial shopping Center
South Trailer Park
East Commercial Shopping Center
West Single family residential units
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) Yes - 3
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) None
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
At the present, the existing mini-warehouse facility is located
directly behind some older houses that are part of the same
ownership. This arrangement of older houses in front of the
mini-warehouse facility gives the entire property a tired, run-
down look.
Our plan is to revitalize this whole project by building new
minis in front to incorporate with. the existing minis we currently
already have and operating in the rear property.
The arrangement we currently have with the older houses is
not conducive to commercial development as it is a long and
narrow piece which is approximately 3/8 mile from the main
business artery of 3rd Avenue.
- ? -
E. CERTIFICATION
General Partner or
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant 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.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name,
-8-
Case No.
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: ~/7~~z~
North ~
South k~
East
West
Is the project compatible ~it~.the General Plan Land
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
(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 P~ and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? . .
A~/~
How many acres of parkland are necessa~ serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.)
ytY/~
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 Studen~ted
Schoo_~l Attendanc~e Capacity ~..~om Project
El ementary - ~
Sr. Hy
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, pleas~ desc~ibe.~ &)4~
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:
Dir~tor ot Planning or Repre~entative Date
-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? S~I~ T F£~c~ rc~ kJ~p~ ~T.
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? kf~ .
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? (q~!~/~ /.'.~="l-~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? YE~.
2. Transportation
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?
Before After
A.D.T. ci ,/~,,r~~(~
L.O.S. A A
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~f~.
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? ~f~
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
,~1 ~'r~iT /)~-DI~,flFIC,U ~ I~_F~,itl~(-f') ~ ~Z~ ~tlLZ-~Qtl~t,
- ll
Case ~o. Y$ Z~
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? /tJCKT ~MObdAY- Ara
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 enouqh to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
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
(per day) Factor Pollution
co 131 x 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons /3~ X 18.3 : ZSqg
NOx (NO2) 1~1 X 20.0 :
Particulates /3/ X 1.5
Sulfur /~1 X .78 /o~.Z-
8. waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ZO 4~-/~ ~- Liquid 840
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? JZ" ~ L//O~ ~CO/~ 6O~Y
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/~esources 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 qLng~t~er 6~r ~epffesentat" e gate '
- 13 -
Case No. IS-88-33M
FIRE DEPARTMENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire. station and what is the Fire
Department's ~timated 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? .~
2..Remarks ~x~O~m ? ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ .,~ ~_~
VISTA FIRE DEPARTt~NT
CHULA
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTI'ON
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Address ~ ~?/.[~0~)~> Plan File
NO,__ Checker ~_~x~.) Date /~/~/~
Type Constr. Occupancy. No. Stories Bldg. Area
The foll~ing list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND S~OW ON PLAN: ~
FPB-29
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO. ~S ~'~y~
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL
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. Soil s
a. Does the project site 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 Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
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?
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 which can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change
in topography or ground surface relief features?
YES POTENTIAL
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke?
E~issions which could degrade the ambient
..r 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 water supplies?
9. Noise
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 levels?
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 endemi~ cies?
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 with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use ~
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
Noise
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
YES POTENTIAL
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?
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect 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
Police Protection
Schools
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads
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?
l?. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power 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-renewable natural resources?
YES POTENTIAL 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? ~
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? V
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, while 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 when viewed 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?
- 21 -
J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the
design, construction or operation of the project:
Project Proponent
Date
K. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
-- the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will net be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARF .r i is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
--effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will be necessary to
-- determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
Environmental Review Coordinator Date
WPC O169P
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Q, A. ~nclm~. C~n~ral Pmr~m~r ~is Lutes, L~it~ P~er
- Willi~ ~nos, ~ ~t~
Jo~ ~s, ~t~ P~er ~lel E. ~nqios a ~1~. ~los~
Paul ~as, ~t~ Par~er L~t~ P~ers
tist the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
s~ as ~ve
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
$~me as aJ~ove
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~/~
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,. ~ru~t, rec.~iver,.syndic~e,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, e~stric~ or o~ner
Ipolitical subd]ws]on, or any other group or combination acting as a un t.
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~ /) ~/~? /~
Signature of aPplicant/d~e '
WPC 070IP ~. A. Ranclas, Ceneral Partner
A-llO Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission Page 1
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1988
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft Part Three, the "Implementation
Program," of the Montgomery Specific Plan
A. BACKGROUND
1. The Montgomery Community was annexed to the City of Chula Vista on
December 31, 1985. After determining that the area needed more
detailed land use planning guidance, the City Council directed that a
specific plan be prepared for the Community. Accordingly, a work
program was prepared which divided the project into three major
parts. Part One, the Survey, Evaluation, and Forecast, establishes
the foundation for the Plan. Part Two, the Plan Proper, sets forth
the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, principles, and
planning and design proposals. The aforementioned Parts One and Two
were adopted by the City Council on January 12, 1988. Draft Part
Three, which sets forth the Implementation Program and the conclusion
of the Montgomery Specific Plan, is the subject of this report.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Negative
Declaration IS-88-4M, prepared on August 21, 1987, constitutes
adequate prior review of the proposed project.
3. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered Draft Part Three a its
public hearing of July 6, 1988. The Committee approved it by a 6-0
vote, and recommended that said Draft Part Three be adopted by the
City Planning Commission and City Council (minutes attached).
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no
significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-88-4M.
2. Adopt a motion approving Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific
Plan and recommending that the City Council adopt such.
C. ANALYSIS
Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan consists of three
substantive sections. Section I, the Introduction, recites Part Three's
linkage and continuity with Parts One and Two of the Plan. It discusses
the key aspects of past, present, and proposed plan implementation
measures.
Section II, Zoning and Special Regulations, compares the adopted County
Zoning Plan with the City's Zoning Plan; outlines the proposed zoning plan
for Montgomery; suggests, through the medium of a Table of Translation,
the methodical reclassification of Montgomery territory from County zoning
to Chula Vista zoning symbols and regulations; sets forth special
Montgomery regulations; and prescribes townscape planning and design
guidelines.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1988 Page 2
Section III, Additional Plan Implementation, addresses citywide and
special subdivision controls; citywide and special capital improvement
programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation,
rehabilitation and redevelopment; and the Montgomery Neighborhood
Revitalization Program. This section stresses the need and importance of
these supportive implementation mechanisms.
D. CONCLUSION
According to the principles of planning, a city plan is composed of three
fundamental elements--the Survey, the Plan, and the Implementation
Program. The Montgomery Specific Plan follows this traditional format.
Part One, the Survey is the basis of the Plan. It documents a large
amount of detailed information relative to the historical development,
existing conditions, and future of the Montgomery Community. Part Two,
the Plan, embodies the Specific Plan's goals, objectives, statements of
policies, and planning and design proposals. Draft Part Three, the
Implementation Program, contains the regulations and implementation
program for the effectuation and execution of the Plan.
WPC 5245P
EXTRACT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 6, 1988 PERTAINING
TO PART THREE OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PCM-88-10M: Consideration of Draft Part Three, The "Implementation
Program", of Montgomery Specific Plan (Continued)
The Committee noted a revision to page 8 of the initial Draft Part Three
as considered by the Committee at its meeting of June 15, 1988. The
specific references was to fire protection.
Rene Apalategui, 2619 Faivre Street, asked about the future use of his
property, which is now being used for industrial purposes.
He was advised by staff that he may continue his present use. He was
further advised that if the City decided to acquire his property, he would
be justly compensated.
Dan Pass, Principal Planner, using a graphic display, reviewed the
relationship of the major components of the Montgomery Specific Plan. He
further discussed Draft Part Three, outlining its major features, and
noting the forthcoming rezoning program and special area studies.
Note: Committee members Castro and Wheeland stated they had listened to
the tape of the June 15, 1988, hearing on Draft Part Three, and were
eligible to vote on its adoption.
MSUC (Fox/Patton), 6-0, to find that the adoption of Draft Part Three of
the Montgomery Specific Plan would have no significant environmental
impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-4M.
MSUC (Fox/Castro), 6-0, to approve Draft Part Three of the Montgomery
Specific Plan and recommend that the City Planning Commission and City
Council adopt such Icopy attached).
WPC 5358P
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 the 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-88-56M) 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 statement of the
relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General
Plan.
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 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-
Analysis
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.
DOUGL~D.~REID
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 5244P
-4-
negative declaration--
PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of
the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987
A. Project Setting
The Montgo~nery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square
miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It
lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L"
Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City
Limits on the south.
The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities
which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been
identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical
reference, and geographical place name. The subcommunities are:
Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay,
and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.)
Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which
vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial
and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area,
and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial
land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown
in Exhibit B of this report.
Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy
878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses,
single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy
155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute
48 acres (3%).
Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted
to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences,
containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome
acreage.
Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within
Montgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial
use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along
Broadway, Main Street and Third Avenue.
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
· environmental review section. CHULA 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 1,000 persons served, which includes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning
area is 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. The remaining 138 acres are subject to
constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or
location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands.
Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within
the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which
contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that
currently permitted by zoning and any physical constraints which limit
permitted uses.
Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay
to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the
Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of
San Diego to ti~e south.
B. Project Description
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, develoPment,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance
currently in effect for 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 Montgomery 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 Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the
implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon
completion of that document.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under
the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the
plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current
residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land
uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type,
where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy
industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan
document are contained within Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center
for the 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.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically
express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Groundwater/Drainage
There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through
the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay
River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining
into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental
impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of
this report.
1. Telegraph Canyon Creek
The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of
the Montgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of
Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona
Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J"
Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove
properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year
floodplain. The channelization project does not include
properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and
some areas which are not contained within a channel will
continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows
these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third
Avenue subject to further study) and private country club to
signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain
designation. In addition, since the special study area requires
project specific environmental review to assess potential issues
with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects.
2. Otay River Valley
The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning
area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San
Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are
interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal
industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing
yards.
The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial
and a small area north of Main Street between Industrial
Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100
year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main
Street was developed with industrial buildings under County
regulations prior to annexation under development regulations
requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when
flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a
combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage
and industrial 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 al ready been established. The area
south of Main Street is proposed for Research and Industrial
land uses subject to special study prior to designation of
permanent land uses.
The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay
River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under
this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted
until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands
determination studies, as well as development of a regional
park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to
review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding
designation pending resolution of complex environmental and
jurisdictional land use issues. As such, no adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the
proposals outlined in the plan.
Land Use/Social Displacement
There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan
proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses
which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These
areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street
and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main
Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and
Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del Mar 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.
In May of 1985, the zoning and General Plan for the County's
Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow
development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5
net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units
have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery 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 Mace Street are currently
zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties
operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and
include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities
conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open
uses within fenced yards. 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 proposed 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 si§nificance.
3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy
The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus
point for community civic and commercial activities within the
area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford
Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street.
This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the
plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus.
Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of
commercial land use designations along the east side of Third
Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in
Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations
would take 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 address socio-economic, environmental, housing,
townscape planning, and traffic issues."
The special study area is structured so that commercial
development on properties with existing residential uses is
precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected.
In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
stuOies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposed 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. Chi6f 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.
Landform/Topography
One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, Woodlawn 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
Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1987
4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps
of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March
1967
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Control ana Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September 1979
6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
· 060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
June 15, 1964
7) Sout~ Bay Community PI.an, County of San Diego, May 1985
8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance
9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista
10) 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.
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
wPc 4242P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section CH[JlA VISTA,
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
~ '~' ~' FUR UFFICE USE
Case No. IS-88-65M
Fee --
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. --
Date Rec'd ~[/. ~.~
City of Chula Vista Accepted by --
Application 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 concludin9 part of the
three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implemefitation or
regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute nr pffectl~at~ 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/Agen~ Daniel M. Pass~ Principal Planner and
Frank J. Herrera, Assls~an~
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
EI~ } (Rev. 12/82)
3/3/88
MONTGOMERY 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 Controls lO
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. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation
The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of ~hree 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 Zonin9 Plan/City Zoning Plan
The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego
County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by the 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 prote~ted 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. Zoning and Residential Density Controls
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 Montgomery 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 10 dwelling units per acre.*
2. Proposed Zonin~ Amendments & Table of Translation
The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and
changes which are essential to the effective implementation
and execution of the Montgomery 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 Regulations
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 Nonconformin§ 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
Code, or the provisions of the Housing 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 throug~ 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, however, will
necessitate a strong emphasis 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. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEM£NTATION
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 Montgomery 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 Programminq
Chula Vista's Haster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major
capital improvements of citywide significance. The ~tontgomery
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
Montgomery 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 welfare, 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. It should be coordinated with
other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment,
and conservation. In Montgomery, the code enforcement program
should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the
Specific Plan.
D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, 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.
-13-
In the Montgomery 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 r?latting 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 tax increment
financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within
Montgomery, such as West Fairfield, where land must be
marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most
practical remedy available is redevelopment.
-14-
E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program
The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program INRP) 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 neighborhood's eligibility for
target-area status:
-- need for public improvements;
-- 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
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or A~ent*
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: ~khk~C-k-~ /~; ~q~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ~,~ [~,
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:
North
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
ig '~
to an area so des hated? ~,/~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? l
(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
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. ~? ~
S. 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$~'ector ol~ Pl'anning or Re~.resentative Date
- 10 -
Case No. ']-S 88 -~/t~f
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?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
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?
Before 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.
- ll -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Li quefacti on?.
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? . /~/o
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 ~ X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) X 20.0 :
Particulates ~ 1.5 :
Sulfur 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 El~gi~r'o~J R~m't~ntative ~ Date '
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 proposed facility without an increase.in equipment
or personnel? .' '.
.Remarks
Case No.
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 o'f fire
protection for the p~oposed facility without an increase,in equipment
Eire Marshal D
- 14 -
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO.
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL 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~te 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 Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources? ~ ~,~
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of §round 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? t.~~
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 ~hich can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change,
in topography or ground surface relief features?
yES P~OTENTIAL NO
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
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 ~vith 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 wa~er supplies? _
9. ~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 levels?
- 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? I~
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 with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
Noise _xJ -
Park and Recreation
Open Space ~/~
Safety
Seismic Safety '
Public Facilities
YES POTENTIAL 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?
The~s~antial demand for additional housing
or~?ec~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 bp/
Schools ' --
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
/
Including 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 new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power 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? L,,,×
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 POTENTIAL
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?
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 t~hen viewed 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?
- 22 -
K. ~ETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
_~It is recommended that the dec~sion making authority find that
the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
_ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
_ _ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an,ENVIRONMENTAL It,~PACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will be necessary to
determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
~nvironmental Review Coordinator ~ate ~)-~'~/- ~
)CPC O169P