Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/12/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, December 13, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-1, Otay Valley Road Widening (Continued from 11-8-89) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-A-M: Proposal to rezone certain territory generally bounded by Ada/Palomar Streets, Main Street, I-5/Frontage Road and Industrial to the east, from its City-adopted "County zone" classifications to "City-zone" classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista - City Initiated 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-16M: Request to allow the construction of a retail/wholesale grocery outlet located at 3141 Main Street - Smart & Final Iris 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-21: Request to establish a board and care facility for individuals with mild mental disorders at 551 'D' Street - Yvonne Allison 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-03: Consideration of an amendment to Section 19.060.030 of the Municipal Code for development projects affected by amendments to the General Plan - City Initiated OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of December 20, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR 89-1: Otay Valley Road Widening Project The applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be continued because the environmental consultant that will be making the presentation to the Planning Commission has another meeting scheduled for the evening of December 13, 1989. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on EIR 89-1 to its January 10, 1989 meeting. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-A-M City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, ~enerally bounded by Ada/Palomar Streets, Main Street, Interstate §/Frontage Road and Industrial Boulevard to the east, from its City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed specific rezonlngs and their precise territorial limits are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Harborside "B" Part I Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally bounded by Ada Street to the north, Main Street to the south, Interstate 5 to the west and Industrial Boulevard to the east. Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: A. R-V-15 to R-2-P (C-36 no change; area being further studied) B. M-52 to I-L-P 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Studies, IS-88-4M and IS-88-65, of potential environmental impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65. 3. On November 15, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee held a public hearing and unanimously supported staff recommendation. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-89-65 for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3 and C-T-P trailer park, hotel, vacant lot South M-lB industrial West M-52 industrial/residential East S-94,M-52 trolley station, M-54,C-37 general industrial, industrial parks, storage yards 2. Existin~ site characteristics. The project area is almost entirely improved with residential and industrial uses. The area north of Anita is improved with a mixture of single family, duplex and triplex residences with a few lots containing more than four units. The predominate lot size is between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. An industrial lot is located at the northeast corner of Anita Street and the frontage road adjacent to Interstate 5. A restaurant and market is located near the northwest corner of Anita Street and Industrial Boulevard and a church is situated on the north side of Dorothy Street. The area south of Anita Street is improved almost entirely with newer industrial suites and larger industrial facilities. The Penny Saver building, located on the south-west corner of Anita Street and Industrial Boulevard, is a plant and office building for the publication. Other typical large tenants include Coast Electric, Maritime Power, and moving and trucking companies. The State of California Employee Development Department is located on Industrial Boulevard about midway between Anita Street and Main Street. Uses occupying suites in the smaller industrial complex buildings include typical small scale industrial businesses such as supply companies, (plumbing, industrial, office, glazing, auto) and small manufacturing shops (shoes, cabinets, sewing, upholstering, automobile repair). Possible nonconforming uses include a restaurant, a pet grooming store, a karate school, a fabric store and miscellaneous offices. A larger tenant in the industrial suites is Harley Davidson Motorcycles which includes show and sales facilities. These uses would be legal non-conforming uses and be allowed to continue operation. General Plan. Please refer to Exhibit A/1 The Harborside "B" Part I area includes four land use designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan as follows: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 3 North of Dorothy Street This area is designated Low-Medium Residential, with an overall density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment is from R-V-15 to R-2-P. The church located on the north side of Dorothy Street, one lot west of Industrial Boulevard, is designated "Other". Proposed amendment is from R-V-15 to R-2-P. Between Doroths and Anita Streets The southwestern lot in this block is designated Research and Limited Industrial. The proposed amendment is from M-52 to I-L-P. The approximate eastern one third of the block is designated Low-Medium Residential. The proposed amendment is from R-V-15 to R-2-P for the majority of the block. The area zoned C-36 is being recommended for further study to determine the appropriateness of commercial residential or mixed land uses. The remainder of the block is designated Medium Residential, 6 to ll dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment for this area is from R-V-15 to R-2-P. South of Anita Street The entire area except for the lot with the California employment offices is designated Research and Limited Industrial. The proposed amendment is from M-52 to I-L-P. The remainder lot is designated "Other" and is proposed for a zone change from M-52 to I-L-P. D. ANALYSIS Several factors support the rezonings described above: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone classifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. 2. The rezonings proposed for the residential areas will continue to allow duplexes. It will also support multi- unit development on larger lots that have the square footage to support them. The precise plan modifier will allow for discretionary review of the projects. 3. The rezonings proposed for the industrial area will prohibit expansion or location of non-conforming uses in the industrial suites. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 4 4. Deferring the C-36 area at this time will allow the Harborside "B" Part 1 Subcommunity to proceed on schedule with its reclassification while addressing the issue of the appropriateness of commercial zoning along Industrial Boulevard. 5 In all cases the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. WPC 6879P DOROTHY STREET -2 commended ~ -~- irther study. LETTIERI - MclNTYRE and ASSOCIATES SHERI LYNN TODUS 6001 BONITA MEADOWS LANE BONITA, CALIFORNIA 92002 (619) 475-9444 ,~-to,.,ember' 28, 1 f!ontgc, mer? P~._a. nninq Committee Ch~a ~..~ist.~ Planning Ccmm~_--.sion 27,5 ~c,e~ t h C;hu~ ~. Vi et~., CA 02010 RelH.~rbor.~.ide "~" P.~.r.t i per,ie] ~822-072-19 1560 Honorable Ch~rpersor, s ~nd Commie. sion ['!embep~: Since >'our meetin9 c,~ November 15~ i'~'8'~' a.t ~.,.~hic-~ been abie to, r'e,.'~e~.,./ the situetion ~.,,~ith m'~ zssociates and ~c,] idi~,' m>' ~,oe.i t~on concern~n9 the po~.sib]e change in the z, ar. cei ] isted ~bo,.,,e ~rom C-3,3 ~o N'-2-P. As thi~. c,r'opert> ~acee Induetri.~.] E',]...~d. ..,hich h~.s hea,..,, commerci~.] traffic, iook's out o~ on commerci~.] de,,,e]o~,ment~ a. cr`o.~s the ~treet ~nd abute a store &nd re~t~par~t i dc, not thir, k i ~,,,~ell suited ~of r`esidentia] de,,,,etopmer, t. It ueuld seem mc, re appropriate to sust~.in the cur`~-ent commer, c;~i usa, ge. be apn, osed to r'~zoning this ~nto ~ residentia! categor-~. Zt i~. mx under`standing that thi.~ is a s[,eciai ztud) aree and meetings to r'e~.,ie~4 thi~. ~.rea. might be ~eid. (.'..~ou]d be a,,.,ei ~.~b~e .~.nd ~.pprec~.~.te being iuz]uded in theee, NOV $ 0 1809 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-~67) 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, , diagram range from 3 to 26 residential use types outlined within the plan zoning ranges from 4-29 dwelling units per acre, where current residential dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial U~e Typ~, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy Industr~al 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, deficiencies - . . retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as present Tn the prov~.s~n of parklands are addressed through proposed well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on t corner of Fourth Avenue and Oran h mercantile us ~ .... ge Avenue ...... e southeast ana traffic concer~s .v ~unomlc, environmental h ~.u,ng rurtner analysis · · ouslng, townscape planning Two areas within Montgomery woul . comprehensive st.~v ....... d be earmarked -- ,,. ...... as West Fairfi~j~.~J~, one first area li~ ~ ~:e~anas'- or soecial for the Ota~ ~[~_L ~,~.:ne second encomnass~,~'~"'~ Ch? subcommunitv'kn.,.~ and Broad,.,~'ver valley. The area s~i+~°~.'.~an~s w~thin the .... -o~ ~s earmarked =e ...... v-~. u~ Main Stree~ h~+ ...... --..-.n ~a ~iom~?' Fn~u~trial us~,°d~e~)-[~udy ~rea in Conj~c~j~t~n~ria~ vr WhiCh lneustrial and other u-~m~acnment.~f the flOodDlai ~ear~ P~ropo~sed Pcoject o~ are presently conducted·- n ~nto o. Part III of the Montgomery Sec' · ~egulations. and "Ad,(+~--~ Z?c Plan is comprised of "?~-~- apecial reoul~.~-- ~i-'u-a~ rman Implement-+~-,, ~ _ ~-,ng ano Special ~.~ _ ~ /~-,~-~ auoress the r~.~+. ._ . ~!¥" s:anoards. Z · · o?~ use w~th~n Montgomery, and t~"'~ :u~ng Plan which nre~.+,~n~ and ~j~fi~rn~ l~nd use in the .... ,:y or Chula V~--*'- ~ .~"~'~ governs · ~a ~ zoning regulations balance of the munici · . o,~, raft III proposes a s ' . .pallt consist o[ selected City zoning provisio tailored pec~al Montgomery Zoning Pl~," Of greater 'Special Mont . ns, and the . . which WOuld also includ: · .... ~ome[y Regulations.. ?..~__ . addition of custom ~ ~-.$cape p~ann~ng and urban ~*~-~"'~ .and Special Regulations ":~,~n gulee/ines. 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 undertaken separately and are of ~ranslation. on page 5A of ~ha~ plan will be subject to additional environmen review. - 22 - K. ~ETERMINATION 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 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.£NVIRONMENTAL I~.~PACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. _. It ~s found that further information ~.~ill be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. ironmenta~ e~view-Coordinator Date WPC 0169P - 19- YES POTENTIAL 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources~ 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for ne¥~ systems or alternatives to the following utilities: 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-rene~able natural resources? YES ~OTENTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. ~esthetics 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? _ 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? ~ _l~ The~ntial demand for additional housing or--existing housing? 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the follo~ving services? Fire Protection Police Protection Schools , Parks or Recreational Facilities - Maintenance of Public Facilities -' - - Including Roads - 17 - YES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological'resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent ~tith 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 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 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. l~ater Quality -- -- Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public wa~er supplies? 9. No__i se 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? - 15 - YES POTENTIAL b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. ~rainage 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?' .V/ - 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.) Y~ES ~OTENTIAL NO 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a. Does the project s'ite contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A significant increale 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? ~ Case No. FIRE DEPART)lENT . ' 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.roposed facility without an increase.in equipment or personnel? ~.t~.~y~/~.~.~/~ .- ~ ' Eire ~4arshal - 13 - Case No. FIRE DEPARTNENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? , 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire .. protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment or personnel? - .. · .Remarks - 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 (per day) Factor Pollution NOx (NO2) X 20.0 = Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sul fur x .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid 6 Liquid ~ ~;hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~Y/A Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ,~y/'/~ 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 E~gi~r o~ R~ntative I -ll Case No. 3. ~eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?._ Landslide or slippage? ~/~ b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? . 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~ 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site?_ ~/~ b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~/~ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~ - 10 - 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? Be fore After A.D.T. L.O.S. ' d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~//~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? yN/~ If so, specify the general nature of the ~ecessary actions. -9- 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary 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.) A? ~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: 'D~ector o~ Planning or Representative ~'ate -8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zonin9 on site: North South , East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ,l.J f~ North j South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ,t i (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? ,/1) ~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ,A~Y~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ,/,.j ~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ,'i.;,z~ - 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. BATE: *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. 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- 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- 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, Communqty 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- 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- B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Pro~ramming Chula Vista's )!aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major capital improvements of citywide significance. The llontgomery 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- 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- be permitted through the conditional Imajor) 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 emphasSs upon inter-project design coordination. i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture, bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered. These features could commemorate the history of the involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence. j. Vertical or. roof-mounted structures which do not make an important design statement should be discouraged. III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN IMPLE~.iENTATION A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Control~ 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 -lO- 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- 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- 13) 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. 15) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula Vista Design Revie~ 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- 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 Nonconforming Uses regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the Chula Vista ~.lunicipal 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- regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are: "Net residential density is the density of the building site. Gross residential density is the density of the building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections." As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore, if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it has a gross density of l0 dwelling units per acre.* 2. Proposed Zonin9 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 t~anslation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is therefore called the "Table of Translation." * Gallion & Eisner, in The LIrban 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- land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as modified by the special provisions and regulations of the Implementation Program. The "Special Nontgomery 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 Control~ The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a fundamental basis of the Implementation Program. With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants mentioned in the above paragraph. The rlontgomery specific Plan's gross residential density categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential density standards, which are fundamental to zoning -4- 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. Tiqe rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be undertaken separately. II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zonin~ 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- 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- DRAFT I.IONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART THREE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, -principles, and planning and design proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text. B. Past Plan Implementation Past plan implementation efforts in I4ontgomery 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 t~ontgomery 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- 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 lO A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls l0 B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12 C. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13 · D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13 E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 WPC 4173P Case No. IS-88-65M Fee _ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. ~ Date Rec'd ¥.~/~ c~<,~ City of Chula Vista Accepted b~_~ Application Form Project No. ~? .~ ~,7 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute nr effprtl~a~o the plan. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista~ Planninq Departmen~ Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/~gen~ Daniel M. Pass~ Principal Planner frank J. Herrera, Assistant ~%~r ond 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 X 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 X Specific Plan Improvement Plans ~Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required -" E~ ~ (Rev. 12/82) \ ./ BIT C ./ EXHIBIT B G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1~87 4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 1987 5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152, 06~284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency June 15, 1984 ' 7) South Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista lo) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. I~ t ~L ~ OR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) " WPC 4242P/0175P City of Chula vista planning department CIIYOF environmental review section CH[_JL~ 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 with attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1) Since the proposed plan affords 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. 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. 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 proposeo action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. T__rans~ortation/Access Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chief amongst these Suggestions are ro widen the right-of-way .f~[ Main Street beneath the MT~j ~! to ~., u~ at Industrial 8oulevard/Hol/ls~er Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions woul which are not known at thi · _ d r~sult in traffic eff rewsions not ...... s t~me, th~ tex~ stinulates +~ ~cts studi ...... ~u. unless supported bv trafF~ _ . ~.o~ ~nese ~ :~ ~n~cn WOUld assess these ~-~ ~ '~ ~nu eng~neerinq . · . ~"~>. mnererore, the p roposal~ ~o revise or enhance traffic circulation S S ~her assessment and as such do n~+ ~__s_~.~e~s are contingent upon ~nvlronmen~a/ impact. ~ ~un~l~u~e significant adverse Landform/Topogrjphy One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, l~oodlawn 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 sin le lam' outlined by the Mont-omerv ~ ..... g .. lly residential Uses · s y ap~Cl[lC Plan would potentially invol~j substantial alteration of existing topography. However, Standard development regulations outlined within t ' C~ty of Chula Vista ren-~o +~ ..... he grading Ordinance for - .... ~-~ graa~ng arc construction permitst~ In ~4ay of 1955, 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 apart~ents 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. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels which access Center Street and Iqace 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 unsightl, by nature and are subject to numerous conditions through thc use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from operation of these businesses. The proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. 3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a foc point for community civic and commercial activities within area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxf Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Str~ This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focu~ regu!a?ons prior t? annexation Under develo me Combination of l=--'"~. area south of ~-~c~on, it and when and inO-~+-~ · ,o-ye Industrial ..... '~'" ~treet Con~=~- Uses, as well -- -, ,-cermlxed w~ _ ._ --~:-,m type -., e~ vacant 2nH .... --'~ .residential ~.~-~ .... y~e The area north of Main Street is urbanized Under CUrrent County floodplain development regulations so that a permanent development pattern has alreaoy been established. The area south of Main Street is proposed for Research and ~ndustrial land Uses subject to Special study prior to designation of per~anent land uses. The balance of parcels Within the MOntgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposed for inClUsion as "ghitelands. this designation, no new land Use activities would be permitted " Under until the Completion of COmprehensive biological and wetlands determination Studies, as well as development of a regional park, green Pelt/open Space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring juri'sdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Special Study area and "Whitelands. funCtion as a holding ~esignation pending resolution of 'complex environmental and 3UrisQictional land Use issues. As such, no adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation o~ the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social Disp|acement There are three areas wit' proposes land us~ +~-- bin Montgomery for Which presently ~is~"[~ are Substantially ~f~ the draft plan · ~ u~ are permitted Under P~S~Tt from land Uses areas are: l) properties south of zoning. These enue rodericks a,in Street betwee- ::c, ano 2~ ..... ~Y ~Cres~ 2~ .... - uace Street , m:~cels east of Third ~.~.. ,.m~upertles south of Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del ~,~ar ~-:.ue between Naples Street an~ AVenue. [See EXhibit C.) These areas have the potential for displacement of . land Use designation. The specific effects are diSCussed as follows. Brodericks Otay ACres The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is develo e with single family dwellin s ' d ' - " -"~ USm Ot nri.., esldent~dl drives. Historically zoning restricted development to Single family Uses. ~ -ace Streets and 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 ~raining 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 (,~'~nel will continue to be subject to inundation, lhe propose plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space {west of Third Avenue subject to further study) ano private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent structures 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 bounos the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue {within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial ano a small area north of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with industrial buildings under County 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, anO 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. Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is 100 acres. There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to 136 acres or 67% of 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 permittea by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the i4ontgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. negative declaration-- PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Setting The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L" Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. -The subcommunities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown in Exhibit B of this report. ' Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres {3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgome~ and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within Hontgomery, 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 Cl]YOF environmental review section CHULA VISTA e. Land Form/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. Conclusion The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the project. ENVIR~,)MENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 5244P -4- 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 ~Avenu~ 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- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-16; Request to construct a retail distribution center outlet at 3141 Main Street in the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista- Smart and Final Iris A. BACKGROUND Casino Realty, Inc., doing business as Smart and Final Iris Corporation, has submitted this request to construct a 13,400 sq. ft. retail distribution center on a 1.7 acre parcel at 3141 Main Street. The land is currently vacant and is zoned M-52, Limited Impact Industrial. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the site as Research and Limited Industrial. Although a decision as to the City zoning of this area is yet to be made, the Advanced Planning Division is recommending I-L-P, Limited Industrial/Precise plan. The Limited Industrial zone allows for retail distribution centers with the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-19, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-19. On December 6, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee voted 4-2 to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-19. Two members of the Committee opposed the adoption of the Negative Declaration based on a concern that the traffic counts included by the Engineering Department were incorrect. Subsequent to the meeting and as a result of staff inquiry, the Engineering Department responded that traffic counts for the area have not been updated since 1987 and the information in the Negative Declaration was based on that data. The Engineering Department will undertake a traffic count this week and have that information ready for the Planning Commission meeting. At the same meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Committee voted 4-2 to recommend approval of PCC-90-16. The opposing votes reflected Committee members concerns about introducing any additional trucks to Main Street, until traffic conditions are improved. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the 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-90-19. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending approval of PCC-90-16. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION The site measures 132 ft. x 560 ft. (1.7 acres) and extends between Main Street on the north and Hermosa Avenue on the south. The plan shows a 13,400 sq. ft. single-story building and 48 off-street parking spaces on the northerly 1.1 acres with access off Main Street. The southerly 0.6 acres is intended to be split-off and developed separately -- a 20 ft. wide driveway easement would be retained through to Hermosa Avenue in order to allow thru-circulation for large delivery trucks. Approval of the site plan and architecture will be the responsibility of the Chula Vista Design Review Committee. Commercial and industrial uses are located to the west, north and east, with vacant lands to the south. The Smart and Final Iris Company has operated in Southern California since 1871. The Company states that they are primarily a "business-to-business" operation which serves mainly wholesale customers servicing food handling establishments, such as restaurants, delis, fast-foods, concessions and convenience stores and business establishments (please see attached letter). A visit to the Smart and Final Iris in National City determined that there is also a significant percentage of retail sales, with large-quantity purchases of low cost supplies and canned, frozen or refrigerated foods, cleaning agents and other supplies. D. ANALYSIS The Municipal Code defines "retail distribution centers and manufacturers' outlets" as facilities which require extensive floor areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume, warehouse-type sale of goods, and retail uses which are related to and supportive of existing, on-site retail distribution centers or manufacturers outlets. The Smart and Final Iris proposal appears to fit this description and conform with the intent of the I-L zone in providing for such uses subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The use will not present a conflict with surrounding development which consists entirely of industrial and commercial uses. The site layout provides for convenient vehicular access and internal circulation with two 2-way driveways plus a driveway easement through to Hermosa Avenue in order to accommodate large delivery trucks on this somewhat narrow site. The site plan and architecture is subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee which is scheduled to consider the project on January 12, 1990. The proposed parking ratio of one space for every 280 sq. ft. of floor area is somewhat less than the 1 per 200 required for a standard retail use and well above the wholesale standard of 1 per 1,000. Based upon the retail-wholesale nature of the use, as well as the information provided by the applicant and our own observations of their National City operation, we feel comfortable that the proposed parking is adequate to serve the use. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 3 The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the Main Street area to be reserved as a corridor of research and limited industrial uses. As noted, this is a proposal for a retail-wholesale hybrid, but consistent with City policy for uses considered appropriate in light industrial zones. We believe the nature of the use as well as the intended site improvements are consistent with the objectives of the Specific Plan for the Main Street corridor. At the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting, it was suggested to the applicant and the applicant agreed that the northern 16 x 132.25 sq. ft. of the site and the southern ll x 132.25 sq. ft. of the site be dedicated to the City to provide for the necessary street improvements on Main Street and Hermosa. 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 site provides a convenient location to serve the grocery and supply needs of small businesses and other organizations and individuals. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The site is surrounded by compatible industrial and commercial uses. The parking ratio is considered adequate to serve a wholesale-retail use of this nature. 3. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The use shall be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan for the Main Street corridor. WPC 7007P [ediu. m~ ZENITH ST. m m ~~ t m m m · )1mm)mJmmlmm Imlmmmmmmmm-' ~-~ m ~_ --' ' m,m,mmm, immmmmm UAIN STREET' ~Od ~CT CASINO REALTY, INC. 4700 South Bc~ie Avenue · Lo~ Angeles. California 90058 ~, (213) 589.9729 · FAX f213) 589-2074 November' 27, 1989 Ms, Barbara Reid Assistant Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92010 Dear ~arDara: Smart & Final Iris Compamy (SFI) has been serving the needs of the business community in Southern California since 1871. Through a chain of 99 cash and carry stores, SFI sells groceries, as well as restaurant, paper, janitorial, and office supplies. SFI's primary customer base is maQe up of three main components: I) Food handling establishments. such as restaurants, del is, fast-feods, concessions, and convenience stores; 2) a wide array of other business offices to hotels and manufacturin¢ facilities. ~ha( purchase supplies; ~nd 3) a "club and organization" com¢onent, includin9 little !eagues~ schools armd PTAs, fraternities, non-prof;[ organiza~iors, amd other ~e~bership groups. SFI considers itself %o be a business to business o~erat!on, and we pride ourselves 'in our tradition convenience and good customer' service. Our clan to build a new :ash and carry store in Chula Vista is oredicated on our desire to more conveniently serve the needs of the business community in the South Bay area. A s~te plan has been submitted to [he C;ty of Ci~ula fist3 for a proposed SFI sLore at 3141 Md~r: Street, The proposal calls for a 13,339 square foot build!ne with acproxi:natety 1000 squ~re fee% of warehmom,,:;e s~orage. "b6cx rJo~" space, and 48 parking ~paces. the property Depar~ent s(aff has ~nfor~]ed SFI %hat it ~n.~/ be :ha,~ged Ci~7 oF Er:ula V~st3 ~L zonir~9, The City staff has indicated that the following parking requirements apply in the City of Chnla Vista IL Zoning and in :he C,,umty of San Diego M-52 Zoning: ZONING USE PARKING ~EQUIRED City IL Wholesale 1 per 1000 sq, ~t. GFA' City IL Retail I per 200 sq. tt, GFA' County M-52 Wboie~ale 1 pe~ 300 sq. f~. GFA' County M-52 Retail 1 per 200 sq. ft. GFA' GFA excludes "back roo~" space. The 48 parking spaces on ~he proposed SFI site plan translate into a parking ratio of 1 per 258 square feet of GFA. That is based on a GFA o~ 12,389 square feo~ (13,389 to~al sq~ar~ fee~-l.O00 ~quare foot back room). SFI is confident that 48 parking '--.paces are sufficien~ for our intended use, The purpose of this letter is to detall how SFI came to ~his conclu~ion. EXISTING STSRE PARKING SPECIFICATIONS: Exhlbit A details a breakdown of i3 existiog SF~ stores located throughou~ Southern California. These are similar sized stores to ~he proposed .~huta Vista s~ore, ranging from 12,000 square feet to 1~,371 square feet, without back rooms. The prupused par~mg ratio Of t per square feet would place the Chula Vista s~ore second on the list in terms of parking at existing similar si~ed stores. For a local perspective, Exhibit B iis~s parking specifications for the four existirg freestanding SFI stores in San Diego County. Only our dcwntown Sar, Diego store has a nigher parking rat~o, and it is the third highest volume store in the chain, indeed, we have so much confidence in th:~ sufficiency of that store's parking that we plan t~ add ~,000 '~quare ~eet on a parcel we are ~'~r'cha~,ing [~hin,t ~he building without ~ddir~g any new parking sp~ces. CUSTOMER TURNOVER TIME: !r; tinge lapse uhotogracny studies that we have undertaken in four of our ex!st~ng store's, we have :~ilowe,J that, on average, cur customers spend 12 to !6 ~.,nutes in cur store~, The . ~sem] fcr the fast ttjrnover r,~te is that mo';t of ou' :us*umers are business; peopl8 who shop at our .totes "egularly, know our mer~handisi~g ~dyOUt, end ,-ed ~o get back their' businesses as quickl / ~,~ ~ossi~/e, We s~e~ialize in convenience and excellent customer service. This results in ~ rapid ch?tamer ~urno','e' r~te ;n Fur stol'es, BUILDING ~PAI~KINO PARKING STOR~ # CITY COUNTY SIZ~ SPACES RATIO 365 La Habra Oran,)e 1~,000 57 1/246 310 Los Angeles Los Angeles !~ 360 50 1/287 ,~1 Wilmington Los Angeles lq 058 40 1/351 3~6 Santa Maria SantaSarbara 12 000 34 1/353 314 Monrovia Los Angeles 13,375 33 1/405 ~81 Buena Park Orange 12 500 30 1/417 356 Garden Grove Orange 12 139 27 1/450 388 Orange Orange 14 314 30 1/477 335 SanBernar'dino SanBernardino12 000 23 1/522 345 Los Angeles Los Angeles 12.000 22 1/545 349 Van Nuys Los Angeles t4 37! 22 1/653 390 Ventura Ventura 12,4~3 19 1/654 377 SanLuisObispo SanLuisObi '~ spo~,O00 18 1/667 ~.r-.o-~..~.$.~L_C_b.N.]_a vis.ta 463 Chula Vis%a San Diego 12,392' 48 1/258 '13,392 to~al sq. ft.-!,000 sq. ft. baci~ room EXH I_I~J[ T ~ ....... o PARKING STORE ~l CITY COUNTY SIZE SPACES RATIO 378 San Diego San Diego 12,000 50 1/240 347 National City San Diego $,645 24 1/360 398 E1 Cajon San Diego !2,C00 26 1/~62 360 Escondido San Diego 11,088 22 1/504 ~QPOSED 4~3 Chula Vista San Diego 12,392~ ~ 1/258 '13,393 ~osal Sq. F~. 1,000 sq. Ft. back room CU$1OMER COUNTS: Th~, SFI chainwi¢Ie aver'age ~eekly. customer Count per store is 2,793. This breaks ~own to approximately ~65 customers Per day, and 44 customers per hour. The !~ropose,d Chula Vista si~e pla:~ has 48 parking spaces. Based on our average cus'COmer turnover rate of 12 to 1~ minutes, each parking space could be turned over abou~ 4 times per hour, so the 48 space parking lot could serve approxim~tely z_2 cus%cmers per hour. While these are all average numbers, i~ is clear that the 48 parking spaces would accomodate customer counts that far exceeded t~]e SFI chainwide average. Based on past experience and the above factors, SFI has determined that She proposed 48 parking spaces are adequate For its cash and carry Store in Chula Vista, The initial site plan tha% was presented to the City ,~lad 55 parking spaces but the C'' ' ~Y Pla~,r~ing Staff indicated that they felt more landscaping and less parking would be appropriate. We redesigned the site pla~ with their concerns in mino, We Felt comfortable that the red,~ction in parking '::'om 55 to 48 would riot have, an imi~aci', on the SFI oi~eration' The redesign1 allowed the addition of more :t~n~_er areas, and this should add to ~.he aesthetic quali~y of the project. We look forward Lo operating a successful castl anO carry store in £hula Vista, with the utmost comfidence that we will ~.ave ample parking as submitted. Sincerely, Tony 8ernardini Casino Realty, Inc. negative- declaration PROJECT NAME: Smart and Final PROJECT LOCATION: 3141 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICANT: Casino Realty, Inc., 4700 South Boyle Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90058 CASE NO: IS-90-19 DATE: November 13, 1989 A. Project Setting The proposed project consists of a retail and wholesale grocery outlet on a 1.73-acre site which is presently vacant. The site had previously been developed and only the building pads remain. There are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. The project site would front on Hain Street and allow delivery access and egress on Hermosa Avenue, which is the site's southernmost boundary. Curb cuts exist from the previous use, but full street improvements including right-of-way dedication on both Main Street and Hermosa Avenue will be required by the Engineering Department. Existing land uses along the Main Street frontage are primarily commercial, with the Certified American Restaurant Supply Company to the west, and the Lance Recycling Center to the east. Across Main Street to the north are legal, non-conforming residential uses and commercial uses. Surrounding land uses along Hermosa Avenue are primarily industrial. Access to the site is from Main Street, with delivery access from Hermosa Avenue. Surrounding zoning is Limited Industrial (IL), and the surrounding General Plan designation is Research and Limited Industrial. B. Project Description The proposed project would consist of an approximate 13,392 square foot concrete tilt-up commercial building with 55 parking spaces proposed. The facility would be used as a Smart and Final wholesale grocery outlet which sells groceries, restaurant, janitorial and office supplies to non-profit organizations, businesses and members of the public. Primary access to the site is from Main Street, and secondary access will be provided from Hermosa Avenue. There would be approximately 200-300 customers per day with a total of approximately 20-25 employees. The hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. ~,. city of chula vista planning department ¢l'lY OF environmental review section (]HU~ VJ~l-/~ -2- C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The site is within the ~ontgomery Specific Planninq Area and the proposed zoning is (IL) Limited Industrial. The General P~an designates the site as Research and Limited Industrial. The purpose of the IL zone is to encourage sound, limited industrial development by providing an environment free from nuisances created by some industrial uses and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. The zone allows manufacturing, processing, assemblying, research, wholesale, storaae uses and other uses of a similar character. The IL zone allows accessory uses }~c~.~s. o.ffices and retail sales of products manufactured on the site. The proposed project falls more closely within the description of a "retail distribution center" which requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. With conformance to the conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed project ~ould be compatible with the zone and General Plan designation, the ~!ontgomery Specific Plan, and the surrounding land uses. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within five minutes in 75% of the cases and seven minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is located three miles from the nearest fire station, and response time is estimated to be six minutes. The installation of one on-site fire hydrant and an automatic sprinkler system will be required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five minutes in 75% of the cases and ~ithin seven minutes in 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there is no problem regarding the adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that a Level of Service ILOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at si§nalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of t~o hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is estimated to be 17,330. Upon project completion, the A~T ~ould be expected to be 19,330. The estimated LOS ~¢ould be "B" both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Full street improvements -3- such as right-of-way dedication on Main Street and Hermosa Avenue; curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and asphalt concrete paving will also be required. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy does not apply to land west of Interstate Highway 805. In addition, the project does not propose any residential uses that would create impacts on park and recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed compatible with the City's policy. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that water flows and volumes must not exceed City engineering standards. Drainage from the project site currently flows over the existing vacant site and into the existing gutter on Main Street and Hermosa Avenue. The existing drainage improvements are considered by the City to be adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City engineering standards. The proposed project could generate an estimated 1,339 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by the existing 10-inch line on Main Street. This line is considered to be adequate to serve the project. The project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy, and sewer access has already been made available to the site in compliance with established threshold standards. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed projects. Water service is already available to the project site, and no significant increases in water usage are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be compatible with the established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of an Initial Study conducted on the project site, that any significant environmental effects will be created as a result of proposed project. With compliance to the conditions of project approval for the Conditional !]se Permit, the proposed project will not create any significant effects on the environment. -4- The following potential impacts have been analyzed and it has been determined that they are less than significant. Traffic The proposed project will create a change in existing traffic natterns, but based upon the number of ADT generated by the proposed project (2,000 ADT), traffic is not considered to be a significant impact. The project would be associated with a Level of Service (LOS) "B" both before and after project completion. The project meets the Threshold/Standards Policy for traffic and the Engineering Department will require improvements including right-of-way dedication and full street improvements, including A.C. pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveways. Therefore, potential traffic impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is deemed necessary. Noise Potential noise impacts are considered to be less than significant, due to their short-term, temporary nature. Increases in ambient noise levels will be primarily associated with the construction phase of the project. No mitigation is deemed necessary for potential noise impacts, since they are considered to be short-term and less than significant. Geology/Soils A preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site by Tarlos and Associates {1989) indicated that soils on the site have a medium to high expansive potential as indicated by UBC standards. The site was previously developed, and does not fall within a lO0-year floodplain area or seismic risk area. With implementation of site preparation requirements, as specified by the soils engineer, potential geology/soils impacts are not considered to be significant and no mitigation is deemed necessary. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Because there is no substantial evidence that the project will create any significant environmental effects, mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. -5- 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site will not impact any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. The site was previously developed and is presently in a disturbed state. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. /~ith compliance to the conditions of project approval, the project will be consistent with uses designated by the zone and General Plan, as well as the Montgomery Specific Plan. The project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals since long-term goals will be achieved through the Conditional Use Permit process. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is relatively minor in size and scope and will be constructed on a site which was previously developed and presently in a disturbed state. With compliance to the conditions of project approval, the proposed project will not create significant growth-inducing or cumulative impacts. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not result in any significant increases in hazardous substances, the release of emissions, or any significant increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed project will not create any substantial adverse impacts to human beings. -6- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Sohaib A1-Agha, Engineering Dept. Bill ~¢heeler, ~uildina and Housing Dept. Shauna Stokes, Parks ~nd Recreation Dept. Carol Gove, Fire Harshal Ed Batchelder, Planning Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Applicant's Agent: Tony Bernardini, Casino Realty, Inc. 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Hunicipal Code Montgomery Specific Plan (1988) This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 9201D. ~I,~EIITAL REVIE~,I COORDINATOR ElI 6 (Rev. 3/88) NPC 6943P ~ ~ FOR OF?ICE USE Case No. Fee q~ ~.o~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No Date Rec'docr. 2Ol'l~B City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~. ~;~ Application Form Project No,t-~ BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Smart & ~inal 2. PROJECT LOCATION {Street address or description) 3141 Hain Street~ Chula Vista Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 629-060-34 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Commercial/Wholesale grocery outlet 4. Name of Applicant Casino Realty, Inc. Address 524 Chapala St. Phone (619) 434-7801 City Santa Barbara State CA Zip 93101 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Tarlos & Associates Address 17802 Mitchell North Phone (714) 250-4117 City Irvine State CA Zip 92714 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). x Location Map __ Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan __Landscape Plans Hydrological Study . × Site Plan I 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 (Rev. !2/82) B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: so. footage 49,g26 or acreage 1.~ /. ~ If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. ~/A 2. Complete this section if project is ~esidential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium o. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 Deorooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density /DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. NurSer of'~n-~e p~rking spaces 't~ be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or .!ndustrial. a. Type(s) of land use Commerc±aL b. Floor area 13,392 Height of structurels) ! story c. Type of construction used in the structure Concrete t±lt-up d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets Store access- 2 driveways peroendicular to Main St.Delivery access-perpendicu]ar to ,~mosa ~'/'exJt Main St. ~ mumDer o~oD-slt~n -' parking spaces provided SS f. Estimated number of employees per s~ift S-6 , Number of 'shifts 2 Total I0-2 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 200-300 Historical Data - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate .25 mile~ Historical Data i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Deliverv/trash j. Hours of operatio. 7:00AM to 6:00PM Mon thru Fri/ 8:00AM to 5:00PM Sat k. Type of exterior lighting High pressure sodium vapor 4. If 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 yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 49 b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area {sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 1.~acres d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 8" Average depth of cut . 4" Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill 0 - 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. Not available at this time 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? No 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which Iif any) will be removed by the project. None 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? Not to our knowledge 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Only old slab floors remain~ other~,'ise the site is vacant -- - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Main Street South Hermosa Avenu~ East A Recvclin§ Center and the Westmar Corooratio~ West Certified American Restaurant Eouioment Go, 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? {If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Consul tan_t or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: *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 to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (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 be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? 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: Director ot Planning or Representative Date Case No. G. £NGINEERING DEPARTM£NT 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? ~N.m~ -~'~.~,~ m,.~ ~,o,~,.~.C,~\ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? "1~%_ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? (f~--~..'~ m~-~v.~ -~'~;~ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? NI~~ . 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? . b.~'hat is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~(~¥')~ c. Wh'at is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After L.O.S. [~ - d. Are the primary access roads adequate to the project? ~f not, explain briefly, y~..~_~ serve e. Wilt it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? xf/~$ . If so, specify the general nature of the hecessa~y actions. "'¢5 7 Case Jo. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~, , Li quefac ti on? ..._~ Landslide or slippage? . b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project?-'~5 ~¢ ~ ~,~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site?. b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~ 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 thJre any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify of the applicant? _ /~ that a noise analysis be required - 12 - Case lo. 7. Air Ouality 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 x 118.3 : Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) ~)~0 X 20.0 : Particulates X 1.5 Sulfur X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? ~hat ~s ~he location and Size of existing sewer lines on . . Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public ~acilities/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 meas~res - 13- Case No. /~-~_,~/~ H. FIRE DEPARllqENT 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? , ~ ~ 3. Remarks ~ /~,~ ~t~ i? ~ { ,~ _ ~ ~ __ -~,~ Fir'e Ma'rs~al Date CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address ~'/~b/ ~(~j~ Plan File No~_~(~)-,~Checke~Date Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories . Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: -13(a)- Case No. ~._~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative Sweetwater Union High School District November 13, 1989 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista ~76 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: IS-90-19/3141 Main Street Please be advised that the above referenced develooment oroject will have an imoact ~ upon the Sweetwater Union Nigh School District. Therefore, oayment of commercial/industrial rate develooer fees will be required. If you have any questions, olease feel free to contact me at 691- 5553. ,. Re~ctfu]ly, Thomas Silva Director of Olannina TS/sf CHUI,A-fISTA CITY SCHOG- DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARD OF EDUCATION DR. JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDO JUDY SCHULENBERG FRANKA. TARANTINO November 1, 1989 IHTERIM SUPERINTENDENT 'I~V 5 13~3 JOHN F. VUGRIN, Ph,D. ~ Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No. IS-90-19 Applicant: Casino Realty, Inc. - Santa Barbara [ocation: 3141 Main Street Project: Proposed 13,392 sq. ft. Grocery Outlet Dear Mr. Reid: Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and the District has added 25 relocatable classrooms over the past three years to assist in accommodating growth. Students are also being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation, and to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that this project is in the Otay/Montgomery School attendance area. A developer fee of 12¢ per square foot is currently being charged to help provide facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva CiTY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ANT'SSTATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS 1 WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ~ [COM.qISSION 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. Casino Realtv~ Inc. a California Corporation List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the praparty involved. Pronert~, is in Escrow Seller: Robert G. Steiner Purchaser: Casino Realtv~ Inc. a California Corporation 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. ~as~no [. ..... ~ Inc. a California Corporation owns 100% of the shares of Casino Realtv~ inc. 3. !f 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? ?es No_.t If yes, please indicate person(s) ~is define'~-as: "Any individual, firm, copartnershi , 'oint v e ' ' I soc--6-~-~-T club, fratern m ~-~+~n~ r~ .... +~ ~ ~ p -~ entu~ I LnlS and a~y other county ~+,, ~.~ ~ ~ .- '. · 7' -=~:~ver, sy~ate, I ,~ ....... "'~' ~. ~ ..... ~un~y, c~ty, municipality, district mr m+N=~ ~l~a~ SUDdlV1SlOn~ or any other rou or comblnatl ,, ~ v. u~n=r g P ' 'on acting as a u%i~]~'' .... ' ~ (N~TE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) / ~-/~ ./ ~" appi icant/date A-110 P~in~ ~r'type name of a~p~icant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-21; request to establish a board and care facility for individuals with mild mental disorders at 551 "D" Street - Yvonne Allison A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to establish a board and care facility serving 49 individuals {primarily veterans) with mild mental disorders within an existing apartment building at 551 "D" Street in the R-3 zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-25, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-25. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the finding contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council deny PCC-90-21. NOTE: Should the Commission determine that approval of the project would be appropriate, it would be necessary to first adopt Negative Declaration IS-90-25. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-3 Single family South R-3 Multiple family East R-3 Single family West R-3 Multiple family Existing site characteristics The proposal site is an existing 16-unit apartment building on a 17,600 sq. ft. parcel which extends between "D" Street on the south and Casselman Street on the north. The two-story apartment structure is situated along the westerly boundary and oriented to the east. Fronting the building are 15 angled parking spaces with ingress from "D" Street and egress on to Casselman. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 2 Proposed use The proposal is to use the existing apartment building for the board and care of 49 individuals with mild mental disorders. These are primarily homeless veterans who have thinking or mood disorders which require daily medication. Most referrals and financial support comes from the Veterans Administration. This is a private for-profit facility subject to state licensing and regulation. Two of the units would be converted to a common kitchen-dining area, one unit to offices, and one unit for a live-in counselor. Supervision is provided on-site at all times with as few as two or as many as six staff. A majority of the existing parking area would be fenced and converted to a common outdoor area. The applicant states that all residents are screened to eliminate any with a history of aggressive behavior. Alcohol or drug abusers are allowed only if they've been in a rehabilitation program for at least one year. The minimum stay is usually one year, although some may reside there for several years. All are required to be in some form of job training, work program, or social program on a daily basis. This is not a locked facility. Lights-out is 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12:00 midnight on weekends, but the residents are free to come and go during the day and evening hours as long as they sign in and out. None of the residents are allowed to have drivers licenses. The facility will have its own van plus use public transportation. Please also see the attached operational profile and supplemental information provided by the applicant. D. ANALYSIS It is difficult to find an ideal location for a use of this type. The proponents typically determine that it's primarily a residential use, and that a location in a residential area is an important factor in reintegrating their clients back into a normal living and social environment. On the other hand, these are institutional as well as residential uses by the fact that the residents require supervision and treatment as well as room and board, and these differences can create both real and perceived conflicts with purely residential areas. We have generally encouraged such facilities to seek locations in interface areas between multiple family and commercial districts. This places the clients, which, as in this case, most often do not drive, within convenient walking distance of commercial services. It also ameliorates the potential conflicts with and understandable concern of residents by placing the facility on the fringe rather than in the middle of a residential area. The site layout should also favor a self-contained interior orientation, such as a courtyard or similar arrangement, in order to accommodate and insulate the greater amount of leisure time and on-site activities associated with such facilities in a manner which is least disruptive to surrounding uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page 3 In this instance, the facility would meet what appears to be an important social need -- the provision of shelter, food, training and counseling for disturbed veterans. With regard to parking, the property could adequately accommodate the use considering that the clients do not drive, although it would require some rearrangement of the parking and common areas in order not to have cars backing on to the street. The site is also within convenient walking distance of the Broadway commercial strip. On the other hand, the property is located well within a residential neighborhood with both single family and multiple family uses surrounding the site. Also, the small, linear site and outward arrangement of the two-story building and proposed common area provides little opportunity to contain activities within the site or to buffer adjacent uses to the east from potential on-site noise and activity impacts. For these reasons, we have recommended denial of the request based on the finding listed below. E. FINDING Although the facility would provide a desirable service for homeless and disturbed veterans, its location in the middle of a residential area on a small outwardly oriented site could create conflicts with the surrounding neighborhood due to the institutional nature of the use, the limited mobility of the residents, and the resultant nature and concentration of activities on and possibly around the site. For the Commission's information, the following are the findings which must be made in order to grant a conditional use permit. 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. 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. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. 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. WPC 7008P/2652P I I~TOSH I' I,'1' - STREET ROJECT AREA I ~ I I l. I ..... ~, --I I ~ I L [ J I ~l----- I I I ' 'D' STREET ~NORTH OPERATIONAL STATEMENT Hours: Supervised 24 hours daily~ 365 days a year. Minimum 2 staff members on duty during night time hours and at least one administration member on call within 20 minutes 24 hours a day. Personnel: screened and finger printed and must maintain 30 hours of continuing education approved by the State of California per year. Fire and Safety: because we are a facility for Veterans we must meet Federal Fire and Safety Code laws in addition to state and local laws. We are in the process of obtaining bids to do the necessary work of installing complete automatic sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarm system, {ntercom system and hard wired smoke detectors. In addition we have met with the local Fire Marshal and will improve the building to a one hour rating. Food Service: Our nutrltian standards will meet or exceed the USDA Basic Food Group Plan as required by State licensing. The three bedroom apartment will be converted to dining area and is currently being analized by State officials and the fire department for any necessary changes to construction needed. Recreation: A complete recreation program is scheduled and approved by state licensing including inhouse activities as well as field trips for evenings, week-ends, holidays. Counseling: Group counseling and individual counseling is directed under our medical director and/or the resident's doctor. Medication: Ail medication handling is administration only and under strict supervision by orders from the Doctors. These records are kept for 3 years and open for inspeciton by State licensing, Veteran's Administration and the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Resident Screening: all residents are screened by the VA hospital and/or local hospitals to insure they are not dangerous propensities. In addition the are screened by our administration to insure they are high functioning and will fit into our program. Daily scheduling: Residents will be placed in job training, work programs, and social programs. They will be required to attend these on a daily basis and will be checked in and out of the facility by the counselor on duty. NOV 1 ~ 1989 PROBLEM: Nationwide our homeless population has grown from 2 million in 1983 to a current estimate in 1988 of 3.5 to 4 m~llion according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The County Mental Health Special Services Team for the Homeless here in San Diego states there are 7,000 homeless in our county with only 700 to 800 shelter beds available in temporary facili- ties such as St. Vincent de Paul and the YMCA. Approximately one third of these homeless are Veterans. This homeless situation creates an institution that makes healthy people ill, normal people clinically depressed, and those who may already be unwell a great deal worse. The unfortunate part about the situation is that while there is not enough funding for all the homeless, there are funds available for many and those with fund- ing can't find beds because there are not enough facilities available to house them. Here in Chula Vista there are homeless Veterans sleeping on the street and begging for food and shelter. These people fought for our country and our freedom and we have a moral obligation to provide any needed assistance for their daily lives now. At present there are only 16 beds available for MD Adult Residents in Chula Vista. Compare that figure to 154 beds in E1 Cajon, 607 beds in San Diego and 76 beds in National City and you clearly see the need for additional beds in South Bay. PURPOSE: We will provide a model community care facility; licensed and privately funded for the care and assistance of the mildly mentally disordered. Our doors are open to all homeless who meet our admis- sions standards. However, our programs will be tailored primarily for Veterans with our goal to guide these residents into useful, purposeful lives in the community. This will be not only a major private effort but a community effort as well, and will have a very positive effect on the image of Chula Vista. The city of Chula Vista will be recognized as a model community by helping the Veterans and the mildly mentally disordered live purposeful lives in a safe, healthy environment. PLAN: We have located a site consistant with the Chula Vista general plan and compatible with the sur- rounding area. It is convenient to the transit system, training program, hospitals, stores, and activities. The property currently contains 16 units for apartment dwellers and is easily adapt- able for our needs. The facility must meet specific State requirements in order to be licensed as an adult residential care facility. These include: fire protection, finger printing, emergency proce- dures, client charting and many more. Our facility will meet and exceed the State requirements. The staff is being recruited and are licensed, exper- ienced personnel. Funding for the residents comes from the State and Federal government. Our admis- sions agreement will be strictly monitered and does not allow for any dangerous propensities. All our admissions will be thoroughly screened to determine they fit in our facility program and not be any detriment to the community. We will become an asset to the community by working in community events and offering volunteer time to local busi- nesses and the community as a whole. CONCLUSION: Our goal is to provide a dignified, healthy, safe environment for our residents and to guide them into purposeful lives in the community. OPERATIONAL HANDBOOK A complete operational handbook has been compiled by our director, Yvonne Allison to cover the following: t. Emergency Procedures 2. Staffing, Job descriptions, Personnel practices 3. House Rules 4. Admissions Application and Agreement 5. Housekeeping and Maintenance 6. Medication Administration and Orderi~lg 7. Client Charting 8. Transportation 9. Menus and Nutrition Planning 10. Recreation Programming 11. Resident Placement Process 12. State Licensing Records This handbook is intended to be the guide for operation of the facility and will be added to, and/or revised as needed. It will be the basis of administration and operation of the Veterans Home Facility of Chula Vista. This handbook is available for your inspeciton upon request. STAFFING Director ................................. Administrator ............................ Assistant Administrator .................. Facility Counselor ....................... Day Shift Counselor ...................... Day Shift Counselor (relief) ............. Evening Shift Counselor ~ ................. Evening Shift Counselor (relief) ......... ,- Night Meds Clerk .......................... Night Meds Clerk (relief) ................ Housekeeper ............................. Food Services Supervisor ................. Maintenance Supervisor ................... Recreation/Transportation Supervisor ..... Bookeeper ................................. Medical Director ......................... Advisory Staff ........................... Notes: 1. Director has worked with Mental Disorders for 20 years. 2. Administrator has 15 years experience in Board and Care. 3. Facility Counselor is "live-in" position. 4. Counselors recruited from SDSU and Southwestern. 5. Housekeeper and Bookeeper are part-time positions. Our Staff requirements exceed State Licensing requirements. COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND REFERENCES Compeer Program, Charles Dulaney, Director 3958 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Kinesis South , Nina Garcia, Program Director 265 E Street Chula Vista, Ca 92010 San Diego Alliance for the Mentally Ill 450 Olive Street San Diego, CA 92103 San Diego Regional Center, Wanda Bardwell 4355 Ruffin Road, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego County Mental Health, Ray Schwartz, L.C.S.W. 1250 Morena Blvd. San Diego, CA 92110 San Diego Social Services Community Care Licensing 8745 Aero Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Southwood Psychiatric Center, Walter Ferris L.C.S.W. 330 Moss Street Chula Vista, CA 92011 Veterans Administration, Mr. Vanda Veterans Administration Hospital San Diego, CA Vista Hill Hospital, Jill Dodge L.C.S.W. 730 Medidal Center Court Chula Vista, CA 92010 Volunteers of America of San Diego, Maria Estrada 8627 Troy Street Spring Valley, CA 92077 The above resources were used as reference in compiling some of the information for this plan. In addition, num- erous social workers, hospitals, insurance agents, and public welfare agencies throughout San Diego were consulted These resources will continue to consult with us on an on- going basis. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Veterans Home Facility of Chula Vista PROJECT LOCATION: 551 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICANT: Yvonne Allison/HDS Corporation/Lee Robert Corporation CASE NO: IS-90-25 DATE: December l, 1989 A. Project Setting The project is located in a residential area in an existing 16-unit apartment complex. The ~39-acre site is accessed from "D" Street and Casselman Street, and there are 16 existing parking spaces. Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the south and west and single family residential to the north and east. The site is presently developed as the "Pink Glen Apartments". There are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. B. Project Description The proposed project is a conditional use permit for a board and care facility for qualifying veterans. The facility would provide living quarters for 49 veterans, 3 meals a day, and medication control. The program includes counseling, training, and recreation, so that veterans can become adjusted and "mainstreamed" back into society. The goal of the program is to re-teach the veterans independent living skills. While they will initially be under maximum supervision, the ultimate goal of the facility is that they will require minimum supervision over time. The veterans are taken off site during the day for training and work programs to encourage these independent living skills. All facility staff members will be licensed by the State of California. The facility must conform to all pertinent requirements for the operation of a Board and Care facility. Tenant improvements proposed would reduce the number of units from 16 to 14, with construction of an office and central dining area and living room area. The facility will operate 24 hours a day, although residents will only be able to come and go during assigned hours. Staff will monitor residents around the clock. C. CompatibilitS with Zonin9 and Plans The adopted General Plan designation on the project site is R-M Medium Residential (6-11 du/ac) and the zone is R3 Apartment Residential. The R3 zone allows apartments, townhouses and duplexes; rooming and boarding for not more than two persons as an accessory use. Uses such as the proposed Veterans Home Facility are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section CH[JL~ D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within seven minutes in 95% of the cases and five minutes or less in 75% of all cases. The current project site is within 2 miles of Fire Station #5 and service to the site is expected to have a five-minute response time. Therefore, the project site is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. The project applicant will be required to submit building plans and specific information to the Fire Department regarding the type of clients to be served, as well as, the proposed tenant improvement which will be made. 2. Police The Threshold Standards Policy requires that 84% of Priority 1 calls must be responded to in 7 minutes or less while maintaining an average response time of 4.5 minutes. 62.1% of Priority 2 calls must be responded to within 7 minutes or less while maintaining an average response time of 7 minutes. The City Police Department anticipates being able to in meet this threshold. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception of LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period of less than 2 hours per day during peak hours. The project would not generate any additional trips, bringing the ADT on "D" Street to roughly 3,740 both before and after the project. At this level, a LOS A uould still be maintained. This is primarily due to the fact that the veterans are not allowed to drive. Therefore, the project is compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy is not applicable to the proposed project because the board and care facility will have no impact on parks and recreation; the clients'/patients' recreation will be provided on the premises. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes must not exceed City engineering standards. The existing on-site drainage facilities consist of gutter flow on "D" Street and Casselman Street. These facilities are considered adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with this threshold. -3- 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes must not exceed City engineering standards and individual projects must provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering standards. Existing sewer facilities in the project area include a lO-inch main on "D" Street. This is considered adequate to accommodate the estimated 4,480 gallons per day expected to be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the project is compatible with the City's policy. 7. Water The project site consists of a building which already has water service. The water requirements are not expected to be significantly greater than the existing requirements. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence that any significant environmental impacts will be created as a result of the project, and no mitigation is deemed necessary. Potentially, less than significant impacts associated with the proposed project are related to the potential displacement of approximately 76 residents currently living in the Pine Glen Apartments. This potential social impact is a result of the change in occupancy of the building to a Board and Care facility. Although this would create a need for housing and affect the current housing stock, it is not considered to be a significant environmental impact, since comparable housing is available in the City. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are deemed necessary since there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site does not involve any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. -4- 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is minor in nature and will conform to the General Plan. Any cumulative impacts will be very minor in nature. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not result in any hazardous substances, noises, vibrations, or emissions. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, Environmental Coordinator Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Sohaib A1-Agha, Engineering Dept. Bill l~heeler, Building and Housing Dept. Sh~una Stokes, Parks and Recreation Dept. Jim F. Langford, Chula Vista City School District 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista r4unicipal Code Negative Declaration IS-83-26 Negative Declaration IS-84-27 Negative Declaration IS-85-36 -5- This dete~ination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Stu~, any coments on the Initial Stu~ and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further infomation regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVlRON~NIAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 {Rev. 3/88) WPC 6990P ~ FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /__(-~_ ~---' INITIAL STUDY Rec~i~t No. 7~>~.~F_i~ Date Rec'd _?-~r~.~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~__. Application Form Project No. ~-..¢~.~q:~---- A. BACKGROUND l. PROJECT TITLE Veterans Home Facility of Cbulm Vista 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 551 D Street Chula Vista Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 565-330-15-00 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Board and Care for Mentally Disordered 4. Name of Applicant Yvonne Allison Address P.O. Box 2151 Coronado 92118 Phone 435-3230 City Coronado State CA Zip 92118 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Same Address Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision __Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map --Annexation Precise Plan __Grading Permit Design Review Board Sp. ecific Plan Tentative Parcel Hap Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit __ Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Revie~ 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 ~loise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or' Soils Report Other Approvals Required - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage .36 , ~ i~L',.~]~f]and area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a~ ~Type development: Singl~e family Two family ~ulti family x Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 1 structure, 2 story c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 15 3 bedrooms 1 4 bedrooms 'Total units 16 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres mimes any dedication) N/A f. Estimated project population 49 g. Estimated sale or rental price range N~ h. Square footage of floor area(s) 13,372 i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 40% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 16 .... k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 40% 3. Complete this section if project is f. ommercia~ or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift ., Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i'. ~ Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j.~ Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. - a. Type of project ~o~r~ ~_~ CAre b. Type of facilities provided Room and ~oard c. Square feet of enclosed structures 16,100 d. Height of structure(s) - maximum 2 story e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 49 f. Number of on,site parking spaces to be provided 16 g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTtC£ ~ ....... 1. If the project could result in the direct emission o[ any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. None 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated No (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area /sq. ft. or acres) ~ill be graded? d. What will be the - Haximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of f~ll - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices ~zhich are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used /air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) existin~g electrical appliances and heating equipment in _~a~tments. 4.Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) ~ 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. ' i co nselors admin- 6. [~ill highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, ~ill be generated by the project? 2 trips per day -one vehicle - residents do not driv 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connectio~ to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sew_er lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 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 follow,lng features present on or adjacent to the site? No (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? ' - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or to~ard '' a domestic ~ater supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d..~6Ui~:~ainage fr6m the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise ~enerated from the proposed project site or from points of access~hich may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? ~o 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. ~ndicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. I~one 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are th'ere-any known historical resources locate<on or near the project site? ~n b. Have there been any hazardous n~aterials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? ~o 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Apartment building - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Apartments South Single f~mily hnme East Sinql~ family home West Apartments 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, ho¥, many?). 70 (now) 49(prop. b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information ~hich could expedite the evaluation oF the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION I, Yvonne Allison Owner/,~wner in escrow* 0r Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that'to the best of my belief, tile 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: .. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. /~--~>~- -~m"--- CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North ~9;.,~ ,_~ ,~: 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 to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ ,~ (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 , ,:. .... ~! J ' ,.! ~; j ~ t,. ', ~. Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from qearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) - 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ';~ Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director of Planning or Representative ~, Date - 10 - Case NO.--~ 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 desc~i~ption of existing on-site drainage facilities? ,~--t~~ ~lXl~ o~ C~-~q e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? f-~)~. ~.~ ©~ ~o~(~v~.~-~, g. Are they adequate to serve the project? k~'~ % 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. Wh'at is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After L.O.S. .A. 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? ~.F~ ~ If so, specify the general nature of the nedessary actions. - ll - Case No. 3. .Geology a, Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? ~ ~ )~ Landslide or slippage?. b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? NJ~ ~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~()_ mJ~i~r~ 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 te 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 (per day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) > X 20.0 : <~ Particulates X 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? ~ O~ o C'~~ ~v'~' ~j'~ 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 [~) ~fY~'t i~q~- C' y En~eer 6r ~resentative Date - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPART)lENT 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? 3. Remarks ~4~ ~,? {~~_~ ~. e Marshal Date -13(a)- Case No ../3 -/~, ~=) .% H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative Sweetwater Union High School District November 13, 1989 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Rvenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Re~d: Re: IS-90-25/551 "D" Street Please be advised that the above referenced development project will have an impact upon the Sweetwater Union N~gh School District. Therefore, payment of commerc~al/~ndustrial rate developer fees will be required. If you have any Questions, please feel free to contact me at 691- 5553. Respectfully, Thomas Silva D~rector of Planning TS/sf CHUI,A ISTA CITY SCHOO DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARD OF ED4JCATIOFI DR. JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD JUDY SCHULENBERG FRANKA. TARANTINO November 14, 1989 INTERIM SUPERINTENDENT JOHN F. VUGB~N, Ph.D. Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: IS-90-25 Location: 551 "D" Street Applicant: Yvonne Allison Project: Board And Care Facility For Mentally Disordered Veterans Dear Mr. Reid: As a response to Initial Study 90-25, Chula Vista City School District would like to note that the proposed facility is within a two mile radius of Rosebank Elementary and Feaster Elementary Schools. Chula Vista City School District will seek assurances that clients of the proposed facility will be supervised adequately and of a condition so as not to put the local school population at risk. The building where the center will be located is currently apartments, no additional floor space is to be added, therefore, we do not expect the facility to add to school population. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. ~,Sincerely,[- JFL:dp NOV 14 1989 PLANNING DEPARTMENT' 6HULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF '[HE 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. Yvonne Allison HDS Corporation List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Yvonne Allison HDS Dorporation 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. HDS Corporation - Paul Hamilton George Ellis 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. ltave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No )< If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social 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." (.~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signatu~/of ~pp 'cant/date WPC 070IP Yvonne Allison A-llO P-rint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 13, 1989 Page I 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-03; Consideration of an amendment to Section 19.060.030 of the Municipal Code for development projects affected by amendments to the General Plan - City Initiated At their meeting of December 5, 1989, the City Council did not accept the report on the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code. The matter was continued indefinitely. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that you continue this item indefinitely.