HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/07/11 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 11, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 9, 1990
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item
on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-90-N: Request to rezone approximately 4.92 acres
located at the westerly portion, north of 'C' Street between
Third Avenue extended and Del Mar Avenue to R-l-P-6 -
Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd.
b. PCS-90-11: Request to subdivide 6.67 acres known as
Las Brisas Del Mar Unit 2, Chula Vista Tract 90-11 -
Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-39: Request to construct a
30-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue -
Crandall-Williams (continued from 6-27-90)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: a. RV-90-01: Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning
Administrator denying a front yard parking permit at
34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 6-13-90)
b. ZAV-90-12: Consideration of variance to allow driveway and
parking areas to occupy more than 50% of the front yard at
34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 6-13-90)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-1M: Request to allow vehicle
and trailer storage, auto and truck sales on 2.5 acres at
the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre Street -
H. G. Fenton Company
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-2M: Request to allow vehicle
and trailer storage on 3.0 acres south side of Faivre Street -
H. G. Fenton Company
Agenda -2- July 11, 1990
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-3M: Request to allow vehicle
and trailer storage on 1.4 acres at the southwest side corner
of Mace Street - H. G. Fenton Company
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-14: Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Rancho del Rey Phase 5, Unit 1, Lot 77, Chula Vista
Tract 90-14 - Rancho del Rey Partnership
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of July 18, 1990 at
5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3.
Tape: 309
Side: 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, May 9, 1990 Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Casillas,
Fuller, Grasser, and Shipe
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Carson (with notification) and
Commissioner Cannon
STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planners Lee and Pass, Planning
Consultant Tony Lettieri, Associate Planner
Herrera-A, Associate Planner Griffin, Assistant
Attorney Rudolf
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Tugenberg and was
followed by a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Tugenberg reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its
responsibilities and the format of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ITEM 1. (a) PCZ-89-M: REQUEST TO PREZONE 11.7 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF
LYNNDALE LANE, NORTHERLY OF EAST "H" STREET, AND EASTERLY OF
THE 1-805 FREEWAY, TO R-E-P - Cameo Development Company
(b) PCS-90-06: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE ll.7 ACRES KNOWN AS LYNNDALE
HILLS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-6, INTO 17 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
LOTS AND ONE OPEN-SPACE LOT - Cameo Development Company
Associate Planner Griffin stated staff had received a request from the
applicant to continue the item to May 23, 1990, in order for him to meet with
staff to discuss some of the conditions in the present staff report. Staff
recommended that the item be continued.
MSUC (Shipe/Casillas) 5-0 (Cannon and Carson absent) to continue this item to
May 23, 1990.
PC MINUTES -2-
May 9, 199()
ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-K-M: CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REZONE
CERTAIN TERRITORY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MAIN STREET, RIOS AVENUE,
THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY, AND A LINE
310 FEET WEST OF DATE STREET FROM ITS CITY-ADOPTED COUNTY ZONE
CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY CLASSIFICATIONS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT CHULA
VISTA.
THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ARE CONFINED TO THE BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES
SUBCOMMUNITY OF MONTGOMERY, AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE MONTGOMERY
SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12,
1988 AND ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. SHORT FORM OF TITLE OF PROPOSAL:
BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES
Planning Consultant Tony Lettieri gave a short presentation, stating the area
under consideration was between Main Street to the north and the Otay River to
the south. The proposed zone amendment was to change two zones: the C36 zone
for the three most northwesterly lots would change to R-1-5-P, and the
remaining area now zoned R-V-15 ICounty variable residential at 14.5 du's per
acre) would be reclassified to R-1-5-P.
Mr. Lettieri stated the following reasons for recommending the zone changes.
1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in January
1988. These zoning reclassifications are intended to primarily implement
that plan.
2. The rezonings proposed for all of the residential areas are intended to
continue to allow the type of single-family and duplex development as
exists in the area today.
3. The deferring of any zone reclassification in the Special Comprehensive
Study Area will permit the necessary studies to be conducted within that
area.
4. In all cases, the proposed zoning amendments are a best attempt to
convert the City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Patrick Masi, 4001 Valley Avenue, Chula Vista 92011 spoke in favor of the
rezoning. He stated they did not want non-owner dwellings in the community
because of the irresponsibility, the use of drugs the added traffic and other
problems. '
Arthur R. Pino, 353 Date Street, Chula Vista 92011 spoke in favor of the
project, citing densification as one of the reasons for high traffic, crime,
reduction in property values, cost to the City, "disfranchised" citizens who
could care less--who have nothing to work for.
PC MINUTES -3- May 9, 1990
Bill Harter, 1104 Helix, Chula Vista 92012 spoke against the rezoning. He
stated he owned property in Broderick's Acres and lived a few blocks north,
however, he was not an absentee landlord. If problems existed on his
property, he took care of them. He said that at a Planning Commission meeting
in 1987, Commissioner Casillas requested staff to come back with
recommendations as to financial impact the new zoning would have on the
property owners. In the minutes of the following meeting, it was stated that
the Planning Department did not have the in-house capability to validly
estimate or conduct a land value appraisal which would provide a dollar value
comparison of the existing permitted residential density versus the proposed
residential density.
Mr. Harter stated staff had repeatedly said that it was their intention to
zone the area R2. He urged the Commission to reconsider the rezoning. He
went on to say that no development had occurred during the period after the
County had changed the zoning.
T. David Eyres, 3427 Bonita Woods Drive, Bonita 92002, speaking on behalf of
Millie Chessman and himself, was in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Eyres
spoke of property owner rights, and didn't believe multi-family duplexes would
destroy the neighborhood. Mr. Eyres said he was at the meeting to "fight for"
R-2-P. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposal to rezone.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Fuller stated she was of the same opinion she had at the last
meeting, that the Planning Commission should agree with the staff
recommendation and stay with the single-family zoning. She said she didn't
feel that duplexes and apartments in this area would incur overall problems of
crime; but since it was a neighborhood which was confined with narrow streets,
she didn't agree with adding density on the lots that are available--even with
duplexes. She agreed with Mr. Pino that the area had been neglected by the
County and the neighborhood is now trying to do something to return the area
to some stability, which she thought it would have if the R-1 was retained.
Commissioner Fuller referred to one of the houses at the end of Date Street
with which she was impressed. That area, which is in the Special Study Area,
could one day be part of the regional park. She concluded by saying if the
Commission wanted to do the neighborhood a service, the residents should be
encouraged to continue to clean up the area, and it was what the City of Chula
Vista promised the Montgomery area as a total when they were asked to join the
City of Chula Vista -- that we would provide some good overall planning for
them.
Commissioner Casillas concurred with Mr. Harter that he had asked what impact
this would have on the property owners, because a downzoning is the "taking of
sorts" which means that someone takes and someone gives up. He thought that
in this case, those property owners who had expectations of developing their
property into something other than R-1 are giving something up. Mr. Casillas
said that crime, prostitution, and drugs are not restricted to one particular
neighborhood; that it is everywhere; it is not proper to use that as an
-4- May 9, 1990
PC MINUTES
argument against granting people the right to develop their property to the
maximum. He also noted that the General Plan (Housing Element) of the City
discusses provision of affordable housing to the residents. Downzoning would
make it more impossible for people to develop property and provide affordable
housing. He felt the proposal was against what the City Council had in mind
in development of the Housing Element of the General Plan; and he was not
prepared to support the downzoning.
Chairman Tugenberg commented that Chula Vista is probably one of the
outstanding communities in the County of San Diego as far as affordable
housing is concerned. He also said the area under discussion was policed by
two-officer cars because of the danger.
MSC (Fuller/Grasser) 4-1 (Casillas voted no; Carson and Cannon absent) that
based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies and Negative
Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant
environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M
and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan.
MSF (Fuller/Tugenberg) 3-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A".
MOTION FAILED - Commissioners Grasser and Casillas opposed; Commissioners
Carson and Cannon were absent.
Since the motion failed, Commissioner Fuller asked that the Chairman explain
people present what had happened and what their next step would be. Principal
Planner Pass explained that it would be taken to the City Council, but the
Planning Commission vote would not be registered as an action of the Planning
Commission. The City Council would have the final determination. Mr. Pass
went on to explain that with a 7-person Commission, 4 votes were needed to
deny or approve a motion. Since the motion did not get 4 votes, no action was
taken--it wasn't approved or denied.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said to make it clear, some member of the
Commission could make it a positive motion to deny the request for rezone; if
it passed by four votes, it would be an affirmative denial which could be
appealed to the Council.
MSF (Casillas/Tugenberg-for discussion purposes only) 2-3 that the Planning
Commission deny the motion recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A".
MOTION FAILED - Commissioners Fuller, Tugenberg, and Shipe opposed;
Commissioners Carson and Cannon absent.
ITEM 3: PCS-90-10 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TIARA AT
RANCHO DEL REY, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-10 - Donald L. Bren Company
Associate Planner Steve Griffin stated the project site contained
approximately 9.8 acres, located on the south side of Ridgeback Road just to
PC MINUTES -5- May 9, 1990
the west of Otay Lakes Road. He said the project area was bisected by the
SDG&E easement, and showed the surrounding land uses. Mr. Griffin said there
were a total of 138 units on both sites, made up of two-story townhouse units
in three- and five-unit structures with two access points. He said each of
the sites is served by a private street system. The project would be under
the authority of a homeowners association. He went on to explain the parking,
open space areas, project elevations, landscaping, and project monumentation.
Mr. Griffin stated that staff was recommending approval of the tentative map.
The project had already been approved by the Design Review Committee, and the
approval of the map would allow the units to be sold.
Commissioner Grasser asked why some of the condominiums had one covered
parking space versus two. Principal Planner Lee said that in the Planned
Community District Regulations for E1 Rancho del Rey there were specific
parking requirements for the multiple-family area which include covered
parking. He said they actually had more parking in the covered areas than
were provided for in the P-C District Regulations. The Rancho del Rey
standards are actually in excess of our typical City standards.
Commissioner Casillas said all the street names start with the name "Callejon"
which means "alley." He wanted to know if all the streets were going to be
named "alley." He didn't feel that was very creative.
Associate Planner Griffin said the street names had been distributed to the
various departments for comment regarding problems or conflict and didn't get
any adverse reaction on that basis. Principal Planner Lee said it might
relate to the fact these are private streets and are relatively narrow. The
developers submit the names, and they are distributed to City departments.
Chairman Tugenberg asked if it could be assumed that rolled curbs indicated
private streets. Principal Planner Lee said that City standards called for
traditional curbs which could not be driven over; private streets tend to
utilize rolled curbs and give the developers flexibility if they have a series
of parking coming off those areas where they would need curb breaks for each.
Generally rolled curbs signify a private street development.
Chairman Tugenberg asked about recreation areas for mothers and children in
the pool area. Associate Planner Griffin answered there was a passive area
close by.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
William Moorhous, 9191 Towne Centre, SD 92122, representing the Donald Bren
Company, introduced his company, and said they had reviewed all conditions
requested by staff and were in accordance. He described the number of parking
units for each type of unit, and agreed that they did exceed the parking
requirements. With respect to the street names, he indicated they had looked
very hard for street names that would be a little different. If the
Commission desired, they would submit a different list of street names using
something other than Callejon.
PC MINUTES
-6- May 9, 1990
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC {Shipe/Fuller) 5-0 {Carson and Cannon absent) that based on the findings
contained in Section "E" of the staff report, recommend that the City Council
approve the tentative subdivision map for Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista
Tract 90-10, subject to the conditions 1 through 24.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-05; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE REZONINGS,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, PRECISE PLANS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
AND VARIANCES TO BE PROCESSED WITHIN A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF DAYS -
City Initiated
Associate Planner Griffin said the Code amendments were necessitated by a
proposed policy regarding lead times and forwarding agenda information to the
Planning Commission, and also recent State legislation lengthening the time
period necessary to process environmental evlews. The policy was first
r '
considered on February 14, at which time the Commission voted unanimously to
amend the policy to be returned to the Commission along with any necessary
Code amendments. The policy provides that all agenda reports would be
received by the Commission at least one week prior to Commission action and
that any written communications from the applicant also would be received at
least 24 hours before the meeting. The adoption of this new Commission policy
would extend the present timeframes from approximately four weeks to five
weeks for a standard agenda item. State legislation has recently extended the
time to process projects requiring environmental review from a minimum of
three weeks to nine weeks or more. The new policy and the recent State
legislation conflicts with the three- to six-week timeframes that are
generally provided for in the Code for various types of zoning applications.
Staff recommended that the timeframes located in the Code be deleted rather
than changed to conform with the policy and the legislation so amendments
wouldn't be needed in the future in case the policy should change or new laws
were adopted which would affect those timeframes. The department policy would
continue to be to process applications as quickly as possible, generally a
five-week timeframe excluding the environmental review processing time period.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Casillas/Fuller) 5-0 {Carson and Cannon absent) to adopt Resolution
PCM-90-17 establishing a policy of minimum time frames for consideration of
written documents and correspondence considered for action by the Planning
Commission.
MSUC {Casillas/Fuller) 5-0 (Carson and Cannon absent) to recommend that the
City Council enact the amendments to the Municipal Code contained in Exhibit A.
PC MINUTES -7- May 9, 1990
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Principal Planner Lee reminded the Commissioners that their workshop on May 16
would include the helicopter tour of Salt Creek Ranch and discussed the
meeting time and place. Commissioners were to let the secretary know where
they would meet for the tour.
Mr. Lee briefly identified the items which would be included on the agenda for
the next meeting to be held on May 23.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Shipe requested that staff apprise the Council of his and
Commissioner Cannon's expiration date for serving on the Planning Commission,
so the Council could start working on replacements.
Commissioner Fuller suggested the Commissioners keep their copies of Item 1 so
more copies would not need to be run, thereby saving paper.
Commissioner Casillas discussed the topic of water availability.
Commissioner Casillas requested from Assistant Attorney Rudolf a copy of
Public Law lOll7(?). Commissioner Casillas was to contact Mr. Rudolf after
the meeting to discuss this matter.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of May 16, 1990 at 4:00 p.m.
at Salt Creek Ranch.
'~' ~ y, eta~y
Planning Commission
WPC 7823P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-90-N: Request to rezone approximately 4.92 acres
located at the westerly portion, north of 'C" Street
between Third Avenue extended and Del Mar Avenue to R-l-P-6 -
Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd.
b. PCS-90-11: Request to subdivide 6.67 acres known as
Las Brisas Del Mar Unit 2, Chula Vista Tract 90-11 -
Las Brisas Del Mar Ltd.
It is recommended that this hearing be continued to July 25, 1990, to coincide
with the timing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Note: A corrected notice as to July 25, 1990 meeting has been sent to the affected
property owners.
Montgomery Planning Committee
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 1
2, PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-39; request to construct
a SO-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue 1.
the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista -
Crandall-William$
A. BACKGROUND
Crandall-Williams has submitted this request to construct a two-story
30-unit apartment complex on a 1.26 acre parcel at 1250 Third Avenue. Two
other projects in the Chula Vista area completed by Crandall Williams are
located at 670 F Street and the corner of Beach and Davidson. The 1.26
acre flag-shaped lot is flat and presently developed with 2 single family
residences and 2 detached garages. The proposed project will consist of
the demolition of the two existing single-family dwelling units {both of
which are currently rental units) and garages on the site to build a
30-unit two-story wood framed apartment complex consisting of 18
two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units.
The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the area for Mercantile and Office
Commercial. All of the project area, except the panhandle driveway entry,
is zoned Commercial-Administrative and Professional Office subject to a
precise plan {C-O-P) -- the driveway is zoned C-C-P {Central Commercial)
subject to a precise plan. The C-O zone allows R-3 multiple-family
residential uses through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Such
multiple-family uses are subject to the regulations of the R-3 zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-44,
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-90-44.
At the May 29, 1990, meetin§ of the Resource Conservation Committee {RCC),
the Committee voted 4-0 to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-90-44. The RCC also voted 4-0 to support the statement of
the Chula Vista School District (included in the Negative Declaration)
that developer fees currently allowed by the State are not adequate to
provide facilities required to serve this project, and that annexation to
a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District will be necessary.
At the June 6, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the
Committee voted unanimously to recommend against adoption of the Negative
Declaration. The concerns that were raised involved the following:
l) Water - the rationale of the Sweetwater Authority in asking users to
conserve water on a voluntary basis while at the same time continuing to
Montgomery Planning Committee
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 2
allow hook-ups, 2) Schools the rationale for the Sweetwater Authority
continuing to enroll high school students in schools which are already
over capacity, 3) Checklist - if the impacts to schools-water are
mitigated, the checklist should indicate that there is a potential
impact. All of the above changes and rationales have been included in the
Negative Declaration. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended not
to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44, and because of their
concerns about water shortage, overcrowding of schools, crime (from more
children in the area) and sewage (concern that the applicant consider the
use of grey water), they did not vote on the project.
At the City Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1990, there were four
commissioners in attendance. The vote to recommend adoption of the
negative declaration issued on IS-90-44 was 3 to 1. Since the City
Charter specifies that four affirmative votes are needed to pass on any
action except adjournment the motion failed to carry. A motion was made
to continue the meeting until the July ll, 1990 meeting. This motion also
failed (3 in favor and 1 against). The City Attorney informed the
Commission that a "No vote" on the continuance was the same as a denial of
the project therefore the applicant had the option of appealing the
decision to Council or being reheard by the Planning Commission at the
next available meeting. (The applicant has indicated a preference of
being reheard before the Planning Commission.)
In order to obtain a copy of the minutes of the Montgomery Planning
Committee of June 6, 1990, which had not been completed at the time of the
meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to continue the item to July
ll, 1990.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. 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-90-44.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion to approve the request, PCC-90-44, to construct a 30-unit
apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue in the Montgomery Community of
Chula Vista, subject to the condition that: the developer shall
satisfy the requirements of Chula Vista School District which has
recommended annexation to a Mello-Roos.
Montgomery Planning Committee
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 3
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North R-3 High Density Residential Two-story
apartment complex
South R-3, C-C-P High Density Residential, Central Commercial
subject to a Precise Plan Three-story
senior citizen housing project
East C-C-P Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan - Apartments
West RV-15 Parks and Recreation - Lauderbach Community
Park
Existing site characteristics
The 1.26 acre flat-shaped lot is flat and presently developed with 2
single family residences and 2 detached garages. The terrain slopes south
to north approximately 7 feet, and west to east about 7 feet, with the
highest point being located at the southwest corner of the parcel.
Proposed use
The proposed project consists of a two-story structure with 30 apartment
units, 68 parking spaces (including 17 garages) and a recreation room.
The 12 one-bedroom units will range from approximately 650 sq. ft. - 700
sq. ft. and 18 two-bedroom units will range from approximately 850-925 sq.
ft. Rents for the proposed project will range from $500 for the 1 bedroom
to $625 for the 2 bedroom.
D. ANALYSIS
As stated previously, the General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan
designate the site for Mercantile and Office Commercial. The project area
is zoned Administrative and Professional Office with a precise plan
(C-O-P) and Central Commercial with a precise plan (C-C-P). As noted, the
C-O zone allows R-3 multiple family residential uses through the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit and subject to the regulations of the R-3 zone.
In this instance, the property is a panhandle lot with minimum frontage on
Third Avenue. As a result, it does not represent a good candidate for
typical retail and office commercial uses which depend on exposure and
convenient access.
Also, the residential proposal is compatible with the surrounding area in
which the Lauderbach Community Park abuts the property to the west, a
two-story apartment complex to the north, a three-story senior citizen
housing project to the south, and a church and apartments to the east.
Montgomery Planning Committee
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 4
In terms of density and development standards, the proposal is consistent
with the R-3 regulations with which it must comply. The R-3 zone would
allow a density of 33 units, while the project yield is 30 units. The
project also complies with all of the R-3 height, bulk, setback and
parking standards. With regard to design, the Design Review Committee
will be reviewing this proposal at their meeting of June 4, 1990. Staff
will report on the results of that meeting at the June 6 hearing.
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 logical location for multiple-family residential
development.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The site is compatible with the surrounding uses which are high
residential and park.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The use will be allowed with a conditional use permit and will be
required to comply with all applicable codes 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.
WPC 7878P/2652P
__SPECIAL STUDY AREA
BACH
PROJECT AR
MINUTES OF THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 6, 1990 Public Services Buildina
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wheeland, Committee Members
Berlanga, Castro, Creveling, and Palmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Committee Member Roberts with
notification. Committee Member McFarlin
without notification
STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Pass, Principal
Planner Lee, Associate Planner Herrera-
A, and Assistant Planner Reid
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairman Wheeland reviewed the composition of the Montgomery
Planning Committee, its responsibilities and the format of the
meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MSC to approve the Minutes of May 2 as
mailed. [(Palmer/Berlanga) 4-0-1, with Castro abstaining.
1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
2. OLD BUSINESS
Committee Member Castro asked and received an explanation of
the voting required for the proposed Southwest Project Area
on May 2, 1990.
The Chair reminded the MPC of the Library Board opening.
The Chair asked if any further information was available on
the time frame for submittal of agenda items. Ms. Reid said
the issue would be covered at the next meeting.
MPC MINUTES 2 June 6f 1990
3. PUBLIC HEARING A. PCC-90-39 - Request to construct a
30-unit apartment complex at 1250
Third Avenue in the Montgomery
Community of Chula Vista -
Crandall-Williams
Assistant Planner Barbara Reid made the presentation noting that
the project was consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan
designation of Mercantile and Office Commercial and zoning of
Commercial Administrative and Professional Office subject to a
Precise Plan. She requested approval of the 30-unit apartment
complex after reviewing the site plan, pointing out the access
entrance, basement parking, adjacent zoning and land use.
Chairman Wheeland referenced the Negative Declaration, page 3,
Item 8, Schools, and asked why the senior high students would be
attending Chula Vista High while the junior high would be
attending Castle Park Middle? Ms. Reid replied that Andy
Campbell said the schools would accept over-capacity enrollment
between 110-112 percent. Chairman Wheeland requested that on
page 18 of the check list the potential impact be checked "yes"
because it is a definite impact when children are sent to over-
impacted schools. Ms. Reid said this could be changed and a
notation affixed to the bottom of the form showing what is
required by the Chula Vista and Sweetwater School Districts. Ms.
Reid said she would also arrange, if desired, for representatives
of both school districts to meet with the Committee and answer
questions.
Committee Member Palmer noted that, last year, the Growth
Management Oversight Committee had requested a number of changes
on reports submitted by the school districts. She continued that
she would like to see documents submitted without sufficient
information returned to the issuing district. She suggested that
the format used by Kate Shurson of the Chula Vista School
District be adopted as a general format.
Regarding the mitigation measures, Ms. Palmer said everything
going into the western side impacts the minute amount of park
space per person and asked if the Negative Declaration could show
a potential impact. Ms. Reid replied that it could be done and a
notation placed at the bottom of the page indicating that there
are presently only 4 acres of the 100 acres required for the
Montgomery Area and there is a potential impact even though the
developers will paying a development fee.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
MPC MINUTES 3 June 6r 1990
Doug williams, 4420 Hotel Circle Court, Suite 365, San Diego,
92108 said he was one of the owners of the 30-unit complex. Mr.
Williams wondered how the figure depicting the number of students
was developed as his 77-unit complex at 670 "F" Street indicates
only 4 children.
In response to questions from Committee Member Castro, Mr.
Williams said that the property had formerly belonged to Earl
Clark, that the contiguous property fronting on Third Avenue had
split off prior to his purchase, and that as he was a residential
apartment developer he did not feel it would be a viable
apartment complex fronting on Third Avenue.
Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, San Diego, the project
designer and architect, discussed the rationale of the site plan
and design approach. He noted the location was a good site for
residential instead of commercial as it backs up to the Park and
can serve as a buffer between commercial elements. Mr. Hedenkamp
pointed out that the property rose approximately 8 feet and the
site had been split so that 2/3 of the underground parking lots
occurred below the crest of the existing hill reducing the three-
story level to two. Nine guest-parking spaces (additional to
those required) had been provided because of the distance from
Third Avenue. In response to questions he indicated no
recreational provisions had been made for children because of the
proximity of the Park and their intent to obtain keyed access to
the Park. Regarding possible noise emanating from the Park, Mr.
Hedenkamp replied that the separating wall was solid and that as
the windows were not primary they could be double-glazed if
needed.
Committee Member Creveling asked about maintenance of the
existing chain link fence and recommended a safer fence be
constructed to protect the cars. The Architect replied that they
wished to take advantage of seeing the Park and the existing
landscaping. Mr. Creveling also brought up the matter of water,
the need for drought resistant plants, water-saving toilets and
showers. He emphasized that there was insufficient water in the
community at present and each development affects the amount.
Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson St., CV, cited the following objections:
The plans had been submitted on a parcel not zoned for
apartments; the area is saturated with apartments and condos;
Third and Palomar is an overtaxed intersection and this complex
will add 60 more cars plus possibly RVs; why should the developer
be given the privilege of an easterly entrance to the Park? and
why could this area not be purchased and added to Lauderbach
Park?
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MPC MINUTES 4 June 6r 1990
Principal Planner Lee commented that the proposed site is one of
the very few Commercial Office zones in Montgomery and the
apartment complex is a use provided for in the Commercial Office
Zone.
Committee Member Castro said he was reluctant to support the
project because of the school situation. The mitigation measure
proposed does not remedy the overcrowded condition. Mello Roos
would not translate necessarily into new schools but probably
into more portable classrooms. A mitigation measure of busing
was undesirable. His concerns about the property ownership have
been settled. The development he would like to see is to service
the people already here and not put in any more, particularly
with the present water situation.
Committee Member Berlanga expressed his concern over the schools
the water situation and the traffic.
In reply to Committee Member Palmer's question, Principal Planner
Lee said the item had been approved by DRC on Monday night,
6/4/90. The DRC had recommended a decorative wall with a jog on
the south end to separate the project from the commercial
property. Staff felt the wall should continue around the corner.
Committee Member Castro suggested that perhaps a professional
medical center would be a more appropriate usage.
Committee Member Creveling remarked that if the project had 1-
bedroom apartments it would not affect the schools. He expressed
concern over the schools and all the cumulative effects. He
recommended mitigation measures of more secure gates to prevent
stealing of cars, water restrictors placed on adjacent properties
as well as this property, plus water pressure being turned down
in the entire area. Member Creveling maintained that any impact
is significant and that he could not support the Negative
Declaration.
Committee ~4ember Berlanga commented that the adjacent apartment
complex next door also generated a large number of children.
MSUC to deny the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44.
[(Creveling/Castro) 5-0.]
Committee Hember Palmer reminded the Committee ~embers that a
public hearing was being held by the Water District on 6/13/90 at
7:00 p.m. on the water issue. She suggested attendance by a
member of the 14PC.
MPC MINUTES 5 June 6~ 1990
B. PCC-90-25M - Discussion of Conditions
for conditional use permit for RV
storage at 1375 Broadway Broadway
Equities, Ltd.
Associate Planner Barbara Reid indicated that the City Council
had continued the public hearing to consider possible revocation
of the existing Conditional Use Permit for a recreational vehicle
storage yard located at 1375 Broadway to the meeting of June 12,
1990. Council directed staff to develop conditions regarding
several items and the Montgomery Planning Committee was asked for
input regarding these conditions and how the proposed $7,500
"mitigation fee" might be used for acquiring or improving open
space areas within the Montgomery Area.
The Committee Members expressed strong opposition to the proposed
Conditional Use Permit on the basis that the operation had been
conducted illegally for a number of years and that cooperation
had been received only after threat of revocation of the CUP.
Committee Member Creveling was reluctant to comment on the
proposed conditions in case such comments might be interpreted as
approval of the project. He emphasized that he did not want the
project. He added, however, that if the project were to be
forced upon Montgomery, he would definitely want to set
conditions on it.
Committee Member Palmer said her interpretation of the Council's
request was a fear that if the CUP were revoked, the property
area would be abandoned, deteriorate and remain vacant until
after completion of the special study of the SDG&E utility area.
The $7,500 mitigation fee was to provide a vehicle by which funds
could be provided for open space areas until completion of that
special study. Ms. Palmer emphasized that she did not support
the project.
Committee ~ember Castro agreed with rlember Creveling that he
would like the area as open space and park lands but considered
that it would not occur for some time. He pointed out that new
RV storage lots had been discouraged by the MPC; there was a need
for that type of storage and a monitored lot used for RV storage
only %~i~h a definite cease-time might prevent empty acreage and
an illegal dumping site. He was of the opinion that the proposed
mitigation fee "smacked of extortion" unless immediate
construction of a park could be guaranteed ~hen the occupant
moved.
~PC ~.iINUTES 6 June 6~ 1990
Committee Member Berlanga concurred with Mr. Creveling that the
project is not wanted because of its past history even though
storage space for RVs was needed.
Planner Reid said that Council was a aware of SDG&E's
responsibility to the west side of Broadway and the possibility
that the mitigation fee might provide a means to improve the
area's appearanc until completion of the special study.
Committee Member Palmer pointed out that SDG&E had promised in
the initial agreement to put in the public improvements and noted
that conditions 8 and 9 were separate issues. In Condition ~6
(in the Planning Director's letter) it should be emphasized that
the fee would be for park acquisition only and nothing else. She
repeated that she did not support the project.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
Vicki Wyatt, 3545 32nd Street, S.D. 92104, from Beatty
Development Corporation, was asked why a legal permit was never
sought even under County jurisdiction. Ms. Wyatt replied when
SDG&E had agreed to lease the land it was thought there would be
no problem. When the firm was notified that the operation was
illegal, an attempt had been made to file for a permit but
apparently an employee neglected to complete the transaction.
She indicated that Mr. Beatty, the owner, was ready to pay this
fee to show his good faith. She stated that the lot would be
maintained; its contents are being inspected and junk cars
removed. All vehicles have been pulled from the Broadway
frontage and stored in the rear of the lot. The improvements
provided by Mr. Beatty include curb, street, sidewalks, street
lights, and two fire hydrants with underground pipe. SDG&E has
not contributed toward the improvements at all. They have
agreed, however, to put in public improvements on the west side
of Broadway. In reply to a question from Member Castro, Ms.
Wyatt said that Mr. Beatty has approximately $350,000 invested in
the facility.
The Chair reminded the Committee that it was known at the time
that the improvements were considered temporary measures
suggested by Council and participation was on a voluntary basis.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant Planner Reid noted that a motion from the Committee was
not necessary, the Council was interested primarily in their
comments.
~.~SUC that the ~ontgomery Planning Committee would like to restate
its opposition to the total package. [(Wheeland/Palomar) 5-0.]
MPC MINUTES 7 June 6, 1990
Comments volunteered by the Committee regarding the conditions
are shown as follows:
1. A limitation on the height of vehicles to be stored at the
facility, with a specific height limitation for vehicles
parked adjacent to the fence along Broadway. Staff is
recommending an overall height limit of 14 feet, and a
height limit of 6 feet adjacent to Broadway.
Discussion of the condition included the necessity of
screening the storage yard's contents from Broadway.
Suggestions included slatting at a more oblique angle;
planting of cypress trees to hide the fence; inclusion
of Item #2 of the Beatty letter and #1 of the Planning
Director's letter modified to read "no vehicles over 6
feet in height are allowed adjacent to the fence" as
opposed to "...the fence along Broadway". That the
term "adjacent" to the front fence should include the
%~rap-around portion since there is no screening along
the side fence to where the second fence begins; and
that one of the conditions should be the distance a 14-
foot high vehicle must be parked from the fence;
namely, that the first !00 feet from the fence be
limited to the parking of the lower vehicles.
2. Specific limitations on the types of vehicles which may be
stored, with some accommodation of vehicles other than
recreational vehicles which are stored by residents, as well
as by the adjacent auto center, including operable
automobiles and trucks.
Suggestions included that it should be stated
emphatically that the facility is reserved for RVs,
boats and trailers with no cars or trucks permitted.
(Principal Planner Lee noted that the application was
for RV and auto storage.)
That the applicant go through the lot, vehicle by
vehicle, and remove the trucks piled high with material
and covered with a blue tarp. This presents an
unsightly appearance from the parking lot of the
Palomar Square Development.
An opposition was voiced to any storage of material.
A restriction be placed that only the registered o%~ner
of the vehicle can store in the facility. This
would prevent the trailer repair facility across the
street from utilizing the area as well as providing a
deterent to the storage of stolen vehicles. It was
recognized that the original intent of the facility %~as
to serve the auto repair shop next door.
MPC MINUTES 8 June 6f 1990
3. A time limit on the CUP which would relate to the completion
of a special study of the SDG&E utility easements by the
City.
Discussion included a suggestion that a provision be
made that 4 months prior to the completion of
the special study, the applicant would be required to
notify all of the tenants of the closing of the RV
park. (Principal Planner Pass pointed out that there
was no way of knowing when the study would be completed
and that staff would prefer a stipulated time period
rather than one based on the study.)
The time limit factor was a matter of intense
discussion including suggestions that a 4- or 5-year
period would permit the applicant to recoup some of the
money invested. The Committee reached a concensus that
the conditional use permit be for a 1-year period
conditioned on acceptance of the annual report except
in the case of the special study being completed or for
5 years whichever comes first.
Conditions 4 and 5 were acceptable as written.
6. A condition requiring payment of a "mitigation fee" by the
applicant for the purpose of acquiring or improving open
space areas in the Hontgomery area. Staff is recommending a
fee of $7,500 per year.
The Committee wished to include a provision that the
$7,500 goes into park acquisition in the Montgomery
Area. Committee Members Creveling and Castro said they
would support this because the applicant volunteered to
pay the $7,500.
4. INFOR~ATION ITE~ Budget for Montgomery Planning Committee
FY 90-91
Assistant Planner Herrera informed the Committee that the
$450 reduction from the budget %:ould not impact the
Committee or the staff.
5. OTHER BUSI~IESS None
6. CHAIR~AN'S REPORT
Chairman Wheeland referenced a press article and asked if
the Committee should be concerned about the Otay Lakes
Regional Park. Principal Planner Pass reported that the
item %;as a County park at the reservoir %~hich is on City of
~.!PC r-IINUTES 9 June 6f 1990
San Diego land. It will be expanded to become part of the
easterly terminus of the Otay Regional Park.
7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Committee Member Creveling said he served on the Planning
Committee for that project and that the precise boundaries
have not been defined as yet. He invited Committee Members
to attend the next monthly meeting on June 15th. They have
not defined boundaries.
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:35 p.m. to the Joint Workshop Meeting with the
Planning Commission and Growth Management
Oversight Committee on Wednesday, June 20,
1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3,
Public Services Building.
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
EXCERPT FROM PLANNINE ~MMISSION MEETING OF 6/27/90 DRAFT
ITEM 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-90-39: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
A 30-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 1250 THIRD AVENUE - Crandall-Williams
Assistant Planner Barbara Reid gave an overview of the project and stated that
the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Reid stated that
the project had been to the Design Review Committee and a number of conditions
had been added. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted unanimously against
the Negative Declaration, being concerned about overcrowding of schools, water
conservation, and the added number of apartment units and possibly crime. They
decided not to vote on the project itself. Planning Department staff proposed
that the Commission approve the project on the condition that the developer
satisfy the requirements of the Chula Vista School District to annex to the Mello-
Roos.
Commissioner Grasser asked where the 17 garages would be located. Principal
Planner Lee replied that they were underneath the project. The parking spaces
along the east and north were open parking spaces. Commissioner Grasser
asked about making 18 more garages instead of open parking spaces.
Bill Hedenkamp, project architect, answered that because of the panhandle lot
and the lack of street parking, there were an additional 9 spaces of guest
parking provided on site. No garages were required because of the nature of
the site and effort was made to conceal the cars completely from the park and
conceal vehicular activity from the park.
Commissioner Grasser was concerned about crime in the area.
Mr. Hedenkamp replied that a security gate for the project may be helpful.
Chairman Tugenberg recommended the security gate, also.
This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Lawrence Crandall, 7858 Ivanhoe Avenue, La Jolla 92037, stated he was a partner-
developer of the project. Mr. Crandall agreed with the idea of the security gate,
but said he had a problem with free-standing garages because there is not enough
architectural design. He went on to explain why the project would be good for
the area.
Kay Everitt, 469 Emerson, CV 92011 gave a presentation she had previously given
before the Montgomery Planning Committee. She opposed the project, stating
the the area was saturated with apartments, traffic, recreational vehicles, and
the inability of the street sweeper to sweep some of the areas. She requested
that the Commission disapprove the project.
Bill Hedenkamp, 1331 India Street, San Diego 92101, stated they were requesting
a conditional use permit, and did not have an opportunity at the Montgomery
Planning Committee meeting. He said the Montgomery Planning Committee seemed to
be focused on the multiple family dwelling issue in their opposition to the
approval of the environmental negative declaration.
Commissioner Carson asked what they planned to do to buffer between the park and
their open space. Mr. Hedenkamp replied there was a predominant amount of open
space; there was an existing chainlink fence which they would leave and which
had been approved by the Design Review Committee. He then showed slides of
the surrounding areas.
Commissioner Carson asked how much open turf area was available. Mr. Hedenkamp
replied that there was approximately 26%, and that 14 of the cars belonging to
that project would be in garages.
Commissioner Carson asked about security to the residents, with the open link
fence. She was concerned about young people climbing over the fence at night.
Mr. Hedenkamp replied that the project would be well lit and well managed, and
a full house of watchful tenants.
Commissioner Carson stated that she interpreted the message the Montgomery Planning
Commission was sending was that they were finally making a stand that they should
have taken a long time ago, and as a group they were finally taking that stand.
That should give him some indication as to how she would vote.
Mr. Hedenkamp replied that he concurred regarding some of the issues brought out
by the Montgomery Planning Committee. He had no control over the gray water
issue; he agreed there should be separate areas and sorting areas within the
dumpster locations; they would do what they could in the area of car theft,
with a security gate, garages, and good management; there were issues regarding
water with which they didn't agree; and the applicant has signed a Mello-Roos
agreement regarding schools.
Commissioner Casillas commented that since the Montgomery Planning Committee
failed to vote on the Negative Declaration, to him it was a negative vote. He
agreed with Commissioner Carson in that the message the Committee was sending
was that there were too many apartments in that area; that the City and Commission
are going to honor some of the promises that were made at the time of annexation;
the area is too dense.
Mr. Hedenkamp stated he didn't think the Montgomery Planning Committee addressed
the project fairly and there was not a good, full debate on it. His understanding
was that it was zoned for apartments, and they were charged with looking at
certain specific requirements that were in the staff report under the findings
that need to be made with respect to the conditional use permit.
Chairman Tugenberg suggested to Mr. Hedenkamp that he ask for a continuance
before a full Commission, since there were only four Commissioners present.
Mr. Hedenkamp asked if it went before Council in either case. Principal Planner
Lee stated it would be final at the Planning Commission stage unless appealed.
Commissioner Casillas stated he would not support the motion. He had some concerns
he wanted to state.
Chairman Tugenberg asked Commissioner Casillas to continue. Commissioner Casillas
said that since the Montgomery area was annexed, the City has some moral obligations
to honor something the City told the residents they were going to get, an enhanced
quality of life for that area. The Montgomery Planning Committee has stated some
reasons for not approving the project; he has stated others; the issue of traffic
hadn't been addressed. He believed the project would aggravate the problem.
Mr. Hedenkamp stated they had been through the rezone process on this particular
property, the zoning, and the plan process, and the area was left available for
multi-family use.
Commissioner Grasser said that Commissioner Casillas had a lot of valid points, but
quite often he had stated the City needs low-income housing. This project offered
decent low-income-type housing that tenants could be proud of living in. Quality
should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Casillas concurred, but believed there were enough apartments.
He was concerned with the problems the park might create.
Chairman Tu§enberg stated there were some requirements by the Montgomery Planning
Committee that were inequitable for the applicant, and that was one of the reasons
the Negative Declaration was not approved.
Commissioner Carson noted the Planning Commission did not get the minutes of the
Montgomery Planning Committee which would have stated their concerns. Chairman
Tugenberg pointed out there was a summary.
Commissioner Carson stated that the summary did not contain everything that had
been brought up at the Planning Commission meeting, and she would make a motion
to continue the item.
MSF (Carson/Grasser) 3-1 (Cannon, Fuller, Shipe absent; Casillas voted against)
to continue PCC-90-39 to July 11, 1990.
MOTION FAILED. A total of four votes either for or against were needed to pass
a motion.
There was discussion regarding the number of votes needed to pass the motion.
The applicant stated he was not in attendance at the beginning of the meeting
when that was explained.
Assistant Attorney Rudolf explained that the Code had a provision where the
application is denied by the Planning Commission by less than four votes, the
applicant has the right to either a re-hearing at the next Planning Commission
meeting or an appeal to the City Council without the payment of additional fees.
The choice of alternatives is discretionary with the applicant. If the motion
was made to grant, and the application is denied by less than four votes, the
applicant has the choice of coming back before the Commission or going before
the Council.
Commissioner Carson clarified that if she recommended acceptance of the Initial
Study and that failed, the applicant had the opportunity to either come back to
the Planning Commission hoping there would be seven members present or go on
to the City Council. Assistant Attorney Rudolf concurred.
MSF (Carson/Grasser) 3-1 (Cannon, Fuller, Shipe absent; Casillas voted against)
that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmetnal impacts
and adopt the Negative Declration issued on IS-90-44.
MOTION FAILED.
Commissioner Carson stated that since the motion had failed, the applicant had
the opportunity to come back before the Commission, or to go before the Council.
Assistant Attorney Rudolf agreed, but stated it would have to be at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Sweetwater Union High School District
AOMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
April 5. 1990
Ms. Barbara Eeid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Yourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 92011
Dear Ms. Reid:
RE: PCC-90-39 - Park Village Apartments
The proposed construction of the 30 unit Park Village
Apartments would impact the Sweetwater Union High School
District. The nine students expected to be generated by this
development would attend Chula Vista High School. which is
currently at 1084 overall capacity. Castle Park Middle
School. currently operating under capacity, will absorb the
remaining students.
Payment of school fees prior to issuance of building permits
will be required.
Cord.~/1 ly, .,~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
cc: Kate Shurson. Chula Vista City Schools
CITY SCHOOI- )ISTRICT
84 EAST "J"ST RE ET · C ItU LA VI STA, CALIFO
IA92010 * 619425-9
6OO
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
May 24, 1990
Mr. L. D. Crandall
Box 2306
7858 Ivanhoe Avenue
LaJolla, CA 92038
RE:Hitigation of School I,q)act$ - 30 Unit Apartment
Project at 1250 Third Avenue, Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Crandall:
As mitigation for impacts created by children generated by the
above-referenced project, the Chula Vista City School District has
equested annexation to Community Facilities District No. 5. It is
understanding that this will be a condition of approval on the City's
nditiona] Use Permit.
Our consultant, Tom Meade, has been unable to contact you to date to
discuss the annexation proceedings. Since we process several projects
together under one annexation, it is important that work be commenced
on your project. This will avoid the costs associated with having
to annex a single project and also prevent any delays when you wish
to pull building permits. We operate on a relatively short timeline
for these annexations, and request that you contact Mr. Meade immediately
to make sure your project is included in Annexation No. 2.
For your information, I am enclosing copies of the Financial Feasibility
Analysis and Special Tax Report for CFD No. 5, the existing district
to which you will annex. In order to initiate annexation proceedings,
the District requires a letter from you requesting annexation to CFD
No. 5. A sample letter is enclosed as Exhibit 1. Along with the letter,
we need a legal description, title report and copy of the tentative/final
map. A copy of the flow chart indicating the steps in the annexation
process is attached as Exhibit 2.
The 1989-90 base tax for CFD No. 5 is $.1459/square foot. Various
types of development are assessed at different rates depending on student
generation estimates. Residential assessments for the different
categories are:
Residential Type Factor (% of Base Tax)
Single Family 100%
Duplex 90%
Triplex 90%
Fourp]ex 90%
Condominium, Townhome 90%
Apartment, per unit 60%
Retirement Facility Unit 16.67%
May Z4, 1990
Mr. L. D. Crandal]
Page 2
Re: Mitigation of School Impacts - 30 Unit Apartment
Project at 1250 Third Avenue, Chu]a V)sta
Therefore, apartment units are assessed at 60% of .the base rate ($ .1459)
per square foot of assessable area. This equates to $ .09 square/foot
for apartments, with the assessment period commencing when building
permits are obtained for a period not to exceed 25 years. Once the
assessment is in place, the initial rate is increased by 2% per year
compounding. This assessment will appear on the tax bill for the
property.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Meade at 297-8601.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: George Krempl
Tom Meade
Tom Silva
Doug Williams
(SEVENTH) S%
, CHANGES
-'..' @ ~ ~ ~ ,;,~ ,~ ..,,~,,.,
" ® ® ® ~ .,,..,..,,.,Q- ~?
-i.,,,,.,.., ~o u,4~ER,:,^c. ,,., V ,,-,,,,,-- LU
, .,,,o /: (..,,,&~ .
0'78 AC ~ ,-, .
~ rD;: '
~ ~[,,.j ~,, __. ~r'
.ST.
~ '"""%u_.J < ®
- ,-;.~,~ ';...,,,
1~ ,- ,,,- . ,.,:,j ,..,, ,.;.,.,, ~..,: ,,
~.oo. .~ _~i® ® :
® ;~(Z),,,., ,, : @
.
,~l! ® .' .~o. ·:
· ~.: o-,, ,~.
_.h ..... ,,o ,.,, ?_. : ..... .,._., .... ',,
,R : ~ ~ ST.
O MAP 505 - CHULA VlSTA - POR QSEO 142
u') ROS 2.667
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Park Village Apartments
PROJECT LOCATION: 1250 Third Avenue, (APN 619-211-38)
PROJECT APPLICANT: L. D. Crandall and D. M. Williams
CASE NO: IS-90-44 DATE: May 1, 1990
A. Project Setting
The proposed project is a 30-unit apartment complex on a 1.26 acre
panhandle-shaped lot located at 1250 Third Avenue. The site is presently
flat and there are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site.
The site is presently developed with 2 single family residences and 2
detached garages.
Surrounding uses include apartments to the north, apartments and a vacant
lot to the south, multi-family and commercial' uses to the east, and a park
to the west.
B. Project Description
The proposed project will consist of the demolition of the two existing
single-family dwelling units and garages on the site to build a 30-unit,
two-story wood-framed apartment complex. The complex will consist of 18
two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units.
Access to the site will be provided from Third Avenue. Sixty-eight
on-site parking spaces will be provided including l? garages.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project area is zoned Administrative and Professional Office with a
precise plan (C-O-P) and Central Commercial with a precise plan (C-C-P).
The C-O zone allows residential uses through the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. In the Apartment Residential (R-3) zone, residential
apartment complexes are permitted with a maximum height restriction of
3-1/2 stories or 45 feet. The proposed project has a maximum height of 3
stories and with conformance to conditions of approval for a conditional
use permit, will be compatible with the current zoning, the Montgomery
Specific Plan, and the General Plan.
The General Plan Designation for the site is High Density Residential
which allows 27 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a
density of 23.8 units per acre and is therefore compatible with the
high-density residential designation.
city of chula vista planning department CIiYOF
environmental review section CHU[A
-2-
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 5 minutes in 75% of the cases and 7 minutes in 95% of the
cases. The project site is located 3/8 of a mile from the nearest
fire station, and response time is estimated to be 4 minutes. The
installation of at least one public and one private fire hydrant 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 5
minutes in 75% of the cases and within 7 minutes in 90% of the
cases. The Police Department has indicated that there is no problem
providing 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 {LOS)
"C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS
"D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed
a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic
{ADT) is estimated to be 19,620. Upon project completion, the ADT
would be expected to be 19,860. The estimated LOS would be "A".
Both before and after project completion, with implementation of
Engineering Department design standards. Therefore, the proposed
project would be compatible with the City's policy.
4. Park/Recreation
The threshold/standards policy does not apply to land uses of 1-805.
However, the park acreage in this area is not sufficient to serve the
existing population and it is recommended that the applicant provide
some open turfed area on the site. Applicant will be required to pay
Park Area Development fees.
5. Drainage
The Engineering Department is satisfied that this project will not
cause storm water flows and volumes to exceed City Engineering
standards. The site is not within a floodplain area and existing
drainage infrastructure exists along Third Avenue. Therefore, the
proposed project meets the threshold standards.
-3-
6. Sewer
The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume
must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project
will generate an estimated 375 pounds per day of solid waste and an
estimated 5,963 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served
by an 8-inch line on Third Avenue. This line is considered adequate
to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be
compatible with the City's policy.
7. Water
The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service
be available for proposed projects. The Sweetwater Authority was
notified of the proposed project and has not identified any
constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project.
Staff at the Sweetwater Authority, in response to the Montgomery
Planning Committee inquiry as to their rationale for asking residents
to conserve water and at the same time stating that there are not any
constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project,
stated the following. There have been four years of a drought
situation in Southern California. As this is not expected to
continue and the water situation is not severe enough to warrant
stoppage of water hook-up, voluntary conservation is the only action
the water authority is taking at the moment. If the drought
continues, either mandatory conservation or stoppage of water
hook-ups could result.
8. Schools
The proposed project lies within the Chula Vista City School
District, which serves children from kindergarten through grade 6.
The project will also be serving the Sweetwater Union High School
District. The Sweetwater School District has noticed the City that
developer fees of $.87/sq. ft. of assessable area must be paid prior
to issuance of building permits.
The Chula Vista School District has indicated that developer fees
currently allowed by the State are not adequate to provide facilities
required to serve this project, and has indicated that annexation to
a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District will be necessary. The
projected impacts on area schools are:
Current Current Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary Lauderbach* 721 767 9
Jr. High Castle Park Middle 1,090 1,456 5.7
Sr. High C.V. High 1,978 1,836 3
*Students may attend Harborside
-4-
Attendance Capacity
Harborside 693 732
The Montgomery Planning Committee asked for the rationale as to why
the Sweetwater Union High School District continues to place people
in the already overcrowded schools. Staff of the Sweetwater Union
High School District responded that their policy is that projects
over 40 units and east of 1-805 may require a Mello-Roos. Projects
less than 40 units and west of 1-805 are generally not considered for
a Mello Roos.
Staff of the Sweetwater Union High School District also stated that
the rationale for students from this project attending Chula Vista
High School rather than Castle Park High School is that both schools
are currently taking additional students even though they are both
over-capacity and this project is within the Chula Vista High School
attendance boundary. Staff from the Sweetwater Union School District
further stated that school enrollment can go as high as 110% over
capacity.
£. Identification of Environmental Effects
There is no substantial evidence, as a result of this initial study, that
the proposed project will result in any significant environmental effects.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a
soils report, a drainage study, and a grading plan to assure proper
development and drainage.
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 site is presently developed and does not include any rare or
endangered species nor the habitat of a sensitive plant or animal
species. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.
-5-
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term envlronmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista
and meets the applicable threshold standards. Therefore, the project
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 occurring on a site which is already developed. No
significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
There is no substantial evidence that the project will cause adverse
effects to humans and the project will not result in the release of
any hazardous substances, a significant increase in ambient noise
levels, or a significant increase in vibrations on emissions.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Steve Griffin, Current Planning
Robin Keightley, Advanced Planning
Lee McEachern, Planning Intern
Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva
City of Chula Vista School District: Kate Shurson
Applicant's Agent: D. M. Williams
-6-
2. Documents
State CEQA Guidelines, 1986
Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
General Plan Update, EIR
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial
Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the
environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 7660P
~ ~ FOR OFFICE-USE
Case No. /~-
INITIAL STUDY Receipt'No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND ,:-_ :
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Stree~ adaress-or de~ptioP)i
Assessors Book, Page-& Pa~c6~ N0.
City ~ ~/~ State ~ Zip gT.
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant ~ ~
6. Indicate all permits'or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review coorUinator. ~
a. Permits or approvals required:
~General Plan Revision ~Design Review Committee Public Project
I Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
~Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review '
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
~Location Eng. Geology Report
Map
Elevations
~ Grading Plan ~andscape Plans Hydrological Study
~ Site Plan ~ Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
~ Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PR~ECT ..
1. Land Area: sq. footage-~cll'~7--~ or acreage
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
2. Complete this section if.project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family _
Multi family .~ ~ ~Townhous~ ~Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c._ Number of__U~s~__l _b~d.room ._ 1-~ ._ 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bed~Qoms. __ ~To~] units ~ ~ __
d. Gross density (DU/total. acres)_.. ~.~,~-~ _.
e. Net den~ity_(DU/tgtal.acres minus arLv dedication) ~__~,~,~
f. Estimated_project population ~C) ~x2)~ -_
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s) !!/-~ ~/
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of On-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface ~-~--c~
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
aT ~pe(s) O-f-T£nif-Ose A)T~-~Z
b. Floor area Height of structure(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. ° Describe major access points to the s.~ct~ures and the
orientation to adjoining pro.s/and streets
e. Number of on-site paring spaces provided
f. Estimated numbe~.of employees per shift , Number of
shifts ~ Total
g. Estimate~ number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
----~q .... Y. sd~imated range of service area an~ basis of estimate
i. ~- Type/ext~nt of-operations not in enclosed buTTS~n~s
j~ -Hours of operation~.
_ k. Type o~ exterior tigh~inq.
4. If project is ot~ than resident!al~6~m~al or industrfal------
a. Type of' p~Jjj~ T.7S: ~
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square-~eet of enclosed structures~
d. Height. of structure(s) - maximum' '~',
e. ]:-Ul~timate occupancy load of project ....
g. ~quare feet of road and paved surfa~
C. PR~ECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of a~y-~i~--
pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identifier hem.
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:)
Excluding trenches to be ba~kfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? ~, I!
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? .~
c. How much area ~sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut ~_1
Average depth of cut ~
~ Maximum depth of fill ~1
Average depth of fill
- 4 ~
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
4. Indicate the amount of natural.open space that !~ part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) .~c_tx)-------------------~ - ~/~ ~ ~____c~;,j~C~_f
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type pf these jobs. ~.q~,~L)~.~-F.~C~J , -
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? ~/C)
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? .A~ ~'~j.~ ~F?' ~
8. Describe ~if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:' new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electri~ and-sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
ALL.-UZ/ I'T'I : 'Z'b
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made?
(I~ yes, please attach) '
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? ~)0 (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a.Is there Qny surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table?
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? ~xJC~
-5-
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a. domestic water 'sup~p!y,; lake, res6'rvoir or bay?
d~. Coml~d-dre-}nage'-f~m the-~te~caus~_e~osJ?~ o~r siltatig~ t~
.... ~dj-~ -~ rea ~? - ~
e. DeScribe~l drainage~ facilities to be provided 6nd their
location. ~)C~~u~?~_~___~. ] Z~
3. ~ise: :' ~'~
a. - ~--th~b~ ~isJ'~~]~j proposed ~oj
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses?
4. Biology
:-' IS {he p~c-t~-~a~a~,ma~ partially ~ural state?
b.~ Indicate type, siz~ and quantity of trees on the site· and]which
._ ~ (if any) will be removed by the project, l?~-~lfOFJ ~J
5. Past Use-of the-Land
a._, Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
prOje~ site?-'~O~
b. Have there been any hazardou~ materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site?
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. ?-
-6-
b. Describe all structures and land u.s.~s currently existing on
adjacent property.
Norl~h ~ ~>~_~7-ASt ~/~
South /~./~/~z Lg~.A/~z, ~-~/.~
a. Are there any residents ~te?_._~I5
b. Are there any current employment O~portun~ties 0n site? ~'If so,
how many and what type?)
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project. _.. .
-7-
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owne~Co~e~' ~n escrow*
' Consultant or Agent
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT-'
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any 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.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor'of the trust.
4. Have ~u had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Board~,jCommissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No K~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
I Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
.political subdivision, or any other group or combination actin? as lunit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ,/,~. ~
Signature of~ppl~nt/date~ .
wPc oTolP
A-1IO trint or-type name of applicant
N~S
SILVAS ST
qOLITTL£ .....
.... Conditional Use Permit Application
1250 Third Avenue
......................... cran'd-a~'i-Williams Development
The Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow construction
of an apartment development in the co zone as provided for
in the zoning ordinance. The proposed project is in conformance
with all of the requirements of the R-3 zone as provided for
in the ordinance. In addition to the required parking an
additional 13 parking spaces have been provided for on-site
guest parking because_of.the lack of street parking for this
parcel.
The following findings can be made by the Zoning Administrator
for this development:
1. The site-is zoned CO and would accomodate approximately
a 30,000 square foot commercial office building with parking
for 100 cars. Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
a CUP would allow development of the site under the provis-
ions of the R-3 zone. Theproposed residential use is
a more appropriate use than commercial office as the site
is adjacent to a city park and surrounded by other residen-
tial uses. This will lessen the impact of development
and contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood.
2. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity. In fact the development
of a residential project will improve what is now an under
utilized site next to the park.
3. The proposed project, as evidenced by the accompanying
exhibits, conforms with all of the regulations and conditions
of the Municpal Code for such use.
4. The granting of this Conditional Use permit is in accordance
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan.
Case
C ! TY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT .;
~ - _: .... . :--::~ .: _: · _ _ :'--- No~th; -:~-.~_ .
..... :._ ;.:....~.: z_ _LWes~. : ~_ /~- _
_ :2, L:Genera}.P]an land:use :. :: ¢ : -z z-:::-x -
--z- : -: :.Oes~nation on site. ~ ~,~ ~'x~: &
......... North ~_ ~.~ ~s ~;~ C
_z- : :: West - ~S ~ ~F~ '
!S.-the::~b)ec~ ~mpatible ~th therGene~al :~l~n;band:Uie 6]agram?
:is :the ; 6 ect ar6a a'6Si f0r :c
~va~on :or ~pen-:spacm :or adjacent
to an area so des~gnated~ :r ~ ~
-.I's the project ;located~a~:acent' ~a:-anY~ scenic: r0u~s? - ~O
:(If:yes,-d¢scn-ibe the design ~cbn~ques_ be}ng:used to protect: o~ enhance
:She sceni.c.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? /0' ~/
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. S_chool s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
........ ; ~School_ A~ttendance C~a pacity From Project
~¢Elementary 0%.~-- Z~
Jr. High ~.-,~-z~ ~,~?v.
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance._from.nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) ~
5. _Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources: _ _
Electricity (per year) ~ ~cub,~',~ ~ ~m ¥ .,~)~'~-,'TS ~ /a~%,c~ iz,..~/~,..-.
Natural Gas (per year) ~o
- Water (per day) I~o~/~.,~/~
6. Remarks: -
D~rector ot PlaYthing or R~resentative l~te
- IO-
G. _ENGINEERING DEPAR?M£NT' - -: : - . .
]. Drainag~
a.. Is.th~ Rroject site within a flooj piain? ~0
b. Will the-project be subject to any existing flooding"hazards?
c. - Will.:~p~ject crea~ -any floo~ing, hazards?
d What is the location and description of existing on-site
-~: dFm~age facilities? ~
e, '].Are_they adequate to serve the project?
g-- .A~e ~hey adequate to serve the project? U~ _
2~ -- 'T~Ansportation ~ ~
b. What is the estimated number of one wa- au+~ ~-~ .... ~
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Be fore After
L.O.S. -
d. A~e the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly. ~/A
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? ~0
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary ac{~ons~./a
- ll -
Case No.
3. ,Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?'
Landslide or sl'ippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project? m 0 ..................
4. Soils ...... Y-'
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? u~
b. --~-~.-~e~-.~at are-~he~e-a~verse ~o~l conditions? ~/~ .....
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural ~ope of the site? ~-Z
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
-12-
.. Case No.
7. .Air _Quality
If there is any-direct or.indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
._. Total Vehicle
-' -~- ~' ' - ~' ' (Pe~ day) _ Factor ' ~ollution
CO _' :; '~ :-: ~o X ~18.3 :
Hydrocarbons i ~o X - ~8~'~ .... : ...... ~.~
- NOx ](:N02) - ' :J,~o- :'- X ~. ':20'.0-' = ' '~ ~,~oO
Part~l ares
Sulfur _ _. IqO, X 1.5 :
I~o X .78 ....... =
8. ~aS'~e Generation
wi~ be ge'n~rated by the
proposed pr6j"e~t p6~"da~? .
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~ .__
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact.
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
~i~nificant impact on the environment, please identify the public
~acilities/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
- 13 -
-- Case No.
H. ~IRE DEPARTNENT
]. What is the distance to the nearest f~re Station and what is the Fire
2. Will the Fi~oerDepartment be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? ~
~at~ ~ '
-13(a)-
Case No.
H-1. P~ARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. A-r~-.~i~*i.~ ~e~-Lbo~.h ~-: ~
adequate to serve the ~o-,,]-*~---': ....... ~ -~e
proj~ct~ : ~ e~'=~u~ increase resulting ~rom this
~ Neighborhood _¢', ~ _ ~ " :; -
,' _ -. ,, ~ ,~nre rn s~
.... Z::~ommun~ty parks~ r ~ .......... . ........... -
3. Does t~f~jb~t exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
- '_ -
Parks and Recreation Director or
Representative Date
CHUI/A Z .STA CITY SCHOO - ISTRICT
84 EAST J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
SO~DO~CaT~ April 9, 1990 '~'
.C~Em o. CUWlN~S,
SHARON GILES
FRANK~TARANTINO HS, Barbara Reid
Planning Department
Su.£R~m~t City of Chula Vista
~NF. VUGR~.~.O. 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010 APR 1
RE: Case No. PCC-90-39 / Case No. ~S-90-44 ......
Applicant: Crandall-Nillia=s
Location: ~250 Third Avenue
APN: 619-211-38
Proposed Project: 30 Unit Apar~men~ Buildings
Dear Hs. Reid:
This is to advise you that the projec~ a~ 1250 Third Avenue is located
within ~he Chula ViSta City School District which serves children from
Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established
attendance_area boundaries and transportation services.
Lauderbach-~chool is the closest existing facility to the above-referenced
project. However, the District is unable at ~his time to advise the City
of Chula Vista or potential homeowners which school children from this
subdivision will attend. Schools in this area are at or near capacity
and students may be required to attend schools in other locations in the
District. Should this be ~he case, the Distr~ct provides transportation
as set forth ~n Board Policy #3542 (copy attached). School assignments
may also be based on individual pupil needs, specia] programs, or ~he
District's Jntegrat~on goa]s. [t is also possible children from this pro~ect
may attend a new school constructed at some future date.
Please be advised that developer fees currently allowed by the State are
~nadequate to provide facilities required to serve this pro~ect. The
Distric~ would be glad to discuss alternative financing mechanisms, ~ncluding
but not limited to, formation of or annexation to a Hello-Roos Community
Facilities District.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact th~s office.
S~ncere]y,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: D. H. N~11iams
L. D. Crandal]
Tom Silva
Enclosure
-'~- ' ........ CHULA VISTA CtT¥SCHOOL DISTRtC~-
BOARD POLICY
~: ~. - ::-~: Authorized Minimum -ransro--a-on
Distances
for
Bus
The f0llowmgare ~he mia/mum distances children in different grades must
'~ -: live-from school tO have bus tran,sportation provided:
Grade Distance
mile
G~de i .- ' ' ~' 1 m/lc
Grades'~-.'3'' "' ii rmle
G~ade~ 4-6 ~ ' i½ 'n~l~ ......
._. For reasons el sa[etv, the Superintendent or designee may make individual
exC~piions td theSe di"stanees.
LEGAL REFERENCE:
POLICY ADOPTED: 7-1-60 Reviewed ~md readop~ed: 2-11-63
AMENDED: 6-1-76
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTEm
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 9201!
Dear Ms. Reid:
RE: PCC-90-39 - Park Village Apartments
The proposed construction of the 30 unit Park Village
Apartments would impact the Sweetwater Union High School
District. The nine students expected to be generated by this
development would attend Chula Vista High School. which is
currently at 108% overall capacity Castle Park Middle
School. currently operating under capacitv, will absorb the
remaining students.
Payment of school fees prior to issuance of building permits
will be required.
Cordially. .
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
cc: Kate Shurson. Chula Vista City Schools
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT'
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any 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.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor' of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Board~Commissions, Con~nittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes NoK~q, If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as funit."
Signatur~ of(~ppli~ant/date~ .
A-110 Print or-type name of app)icant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-01: Consideration of appeal from decision of
Zonin§ Administrator denying a front yard parking permit
at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from
6-13-90)
ZAV-90-12: Consideration of variance to allow driveway
and parking areas to occupy more than 50% of the front
yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued
from 6-13-90)
This item was continued from your meeting of June 13, 1990 at the request of
the applicant. Based on the fact that there were only four Commissioners present
at that meeting, attached is a copy of the June 13, 1990 staff report for your
consideration.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of ~une-S3F-¥990 July 11, 1990 Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-O1; Consideration of from decision of
appeal
Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking
permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo
ZAV-90-12; Consideration of variance to allow
driveway and parking areas to occupy more than 50% of
the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo
A. BACKGROUND
This item originated from a neighborhood complaint and an appeal from a
decision of the Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit
to park a 35 ft.-long, 9 ft.-high recreational vehicle in the front yard
of the single family dwelling at 34 East Olympia Court in the R-1 zone.
In preparing the appeal for the Planning Commission, it was discovered
that the proposal also violates a provision of the Code which limits the
amount of front yard area which can be devoted to driveways and parking.
Accordingly, the applicant was informed that it would be necessary to
apply for a variance in order to pursue the appeal.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny RV-90-O1 and ZAV-90-12.
If the Commission wishes to approve the permit and variance, we recommend
a continuance to the meeting of June 27, 1990, so that the Commission's
position can be formulated into the necessary variance findings.
C. DISCUSSION
The Municipal Code provides that parking in the front yard shall be
limited to either the driveway or a dust free surface within lO ft. of
the edge of the driveway, unless otherwise authorized by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to an approved site plan. The RV in question
would be parked perpendicular to the street on the opposite side of the
yard from the driveway, and directly adjacent to the driveway of the
neighboring home to the west. The RV would extend almost the entire
depth of the front yard -- from the front of the dwelling to within one
or two feet of the sidewalk.
The Municipal Code also provides that the total combination of driveways
and adjacent parking areas shall not occupy more than 50% of the front or
exterior sideyard. In this case, the lot is 60 ft.-wide, and pavement
has been added to both sides of the driveway to create a 27 ft.-wide area
which provides parking for three vehicles. The proposal to add an 11
ft.-wide RV parking space on the opposite side of the lot brings the
total width to 38 ft., or 63% of the front yard devoted to driveway and
parking areas.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of ~une-13~-lgg0 July I1, 1990 Page 2
The Zoning Administrator_denied_~he.fmon% yard ~arking permit based on
safety considerations -- the location and height of the RV would obstruct
visibility to the sidewalk and street for vehicles exiting the adjacent
driveway. The City Traffic Engineer reports that a minimum distance of
l0 ft. from back of sidewalk should remain unobstructed above 3.5 ft. in
order to maintain safe conditions, and this ~s consistent with the City's
height limit for fencing in front and exterior side yards. The
endorsement of an unsafe condition resulting in injury would also raise
the issue of potential liability on the part of the City, according to
the City Attorney.
With respect to the variance request, the staff can find no hardship
which would justify using more than 50% of the front yard of a standard
60 ft.-wide single family lot for driveways and parking areas. In
addition to the safety considerations noted above, the proposal is not
consistent with the standards for open space and the aesthetic values
which have come to be expected in single family areas. It'should be
noted that the applicant was advised of staff's position on the variance
prior to filing the application.
The applicant has the option of parking the RV on the street -- provided
it is moved at least every 72 hours -- or within an RV storage lot.
D. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
The applicant's statement of appeal reads "I have seen many motor homes
and other vehicles parked in other front yards under the same conditions
throughout the City. I am asking for the same rights. At this time I
think there is only one complaint by one person who is my neighbor to the
west of me. She has been complaining about everything and anything for
the last twenty years. But even so I believe I should have the same
right as she does and I wish to park my motor home on my side yard."
(Please see attached.)
E. VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The property in question is a standard 60 ft.-wide (8,063 sq. ft.)
R-1 lot which presents no discernable hardship to justify a variance
from the front yard driveway and parking limitations.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of ~u~e=~:~O- July 11, 1990 Page 3
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
The granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege in
that it would allow a greater area for front yard parking and
circulation than that which could be established on other properties
in the same zone and vicinity.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
Granting the variance would obstruct visibility from the adjacent
driveway and create a safety hazard for pedestrians and motorists.
It would also defeat the open space and aesthetic objectives
represented by the front yard setback provisions by allowing an
inordinate amount of parking in the front yard.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The grant of the variance is inconsistent with the policies and
standards of the City with respect to open space and aesthetics in
single family neighborhoods.
WPC 7890P
CASTLE PARK
ELEMENTARY
OXFORD
I I I I!
Ifil.
!..'~ wY. I I /
I
I
E. OLYMPIA
I
~-11 II
I
E. ONEIDA CT,
E. ORLANDO CT.
EAST PALOMAR
City of Chula Vista Date Received
Planning Department Fee Paid ~r~-~-~
App Form Receipt No.
eal Case No: ~/_
I
Appea~ from the decision of: [] Zoning [] Planning [] Design Review
Admin i strator Commission Committee
Address:Appellant: ~ ~_~ ~ //~/~ ~'--- ~.t~ Phone
Request for:
(Example' zone change, variance, design review, etc.)
Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ~ZA ~PC ~DRC
for the property located at: ~ ~.~ ~U ~'~
SJfl~ature of Appetlant
Do Not ~rite In Th~s Space
To: P]annJng ~epaPtment Date Appea] Fi]ed:
Case No: Date of dec~sJon: Receipt
The above matteP has been scheduled for public heaPin~ befoPe the:
P]annJng Commission CJty'CouncJl on
Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk
(This form to be filed in triplicate.)
PL-60
Rev. 12183
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~
PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT -
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the
City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following
information must be d~sclosed:
1. ~:Lfst ~he.~names of ali :persons ha~g a financial interest in the application, bid,
coptract~ o~ prop~T~
If real P~°~t~ {~i~iv~, "l~s~ l~he ~a~mes all persons having any ownership
iqterest~L_ ~___ (-~ .. / of
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.
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~rustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you or any person named in (1) above 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)
5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than
$1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period?
Yes No ~
If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
Person 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 gro~or comb~nat~nn~unit.,,
(NOTE: Attach additional page~_~a~eces~sary.) ~
naf~- ~ ~ c-~,~-~-~-~ -I -- ~ ~, ~
< Signature of contractor/applicant --
WPC 0701P ~
A-110 Print or type name of contractor/applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-1M; request for a
conditional use permit for vehicle and trail er
storage and auto and truck sales including custodial
and security facilities at the southwest corner of
Broadway and Faivre Streets - H. G. Fenton Company
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, H. G. Fenton Company, is proposing the use of 2.6 acres of
land located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre Street for
vehicle and trailer storage and used auto and truck sales. The proposal
includes two mobile trailer offices with sanitary facilities. The site
plan shows 63 truck trailer spaces {42 spaces for 40 foot trailers and 21
spaces for 20 foot trailers and space for approximately 45 cars).
Various items which will be transported by the company using the site
will be stored in the containers. The items may be transported overseas
or transported between Long Beach and San Diego County, or throughout the
United States. Examples of some of the materials that were listed on the
manifest of one company which is interested in leasing space included:
women's clothing, seashells, electronic component parts, household goods
(for people moving from overseas), safes, furniture, gloves, bicycles,
motorcycle parts and exercise clothing. One month is usually the longest
time that any materials are stored. Hours of operation are from 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sunday. The manifest of items stored will be available to the Planning
Department and members of the Montgomery Planning Committee on a
prearranged confidential basis. A provision of the lease with any leasee
will strictly and specifically prohibit any use or storage of toxic or
hazardous materials on this site. A condition has been included on this
subject.
A somewhat similar proposal had gone before the Montgomery Planning
Committee (MPC) from H. G. Fenton & Company almost a year ago. At that
time, the applicant had proposed a master conditional use permit for the
MPC's approval basically for storage purposes. Specific uses were to be
worked out at the Zoning Administrator level.
The members of the Committee voiced their concern over the granting of a
Master Conditional Use Permit. The MPC preferred that the conditional
use permit be for a specific use. They also requested additional
information on traffic be included in the Negative Declaration and
requested corrections to the Initial Study.
As a result, the Fenton staff modified their proposal to one for a
specific use, vehicle and trailer storage, and auto and truck sales and
met with a subcommittee of the MPC and staff at the time of their
submittal in order to obtain additional input as to the specific
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990 Page 2
conditions (j thru n) the MPC may require. These are starred in Section
B, Recommendation. The City required the applicant to undertake a
traffic study to answer the concerns raised by the MPC (please see the
June 12, 1990, memo from Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer to Barbara
Reid, Assistant Planner on Additional Traffic Information Pertainin9 to
the Proposed Truck Storage Facility to be Located in the Mont omery
Area/Application by Fenton Western Properties and Final Technical ~epo,~
~ontgomery Analysis prepared for the City by JHK and Associates dated
~une II, )~u (attached).
Staff also made the necessary changes to the Initial Study and prepared
an addendum to the Negative Declaration which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project.
An Initial Study, IS-90-8M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
December 29, 1989. An addendum as stated previously was also prepared.
The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and is recommending that a Negative
Declaration be adopted.
At the meeting of the MPC on June 20, 1980, the MPC unanimously voted to
adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-8M and based on the
findings contained in Section E of this report, unanimously voted to
adopt PCC-90-2M for a conditional use permit for temporary truck trailer
storage at the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre Streets subject to
the conditions that follow.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-8M.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, Pcc-go-1M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for a temporary vehicle and trailer storage and used auto and
truck sales at the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre Streets
subject to the following conditions:
a. The use permit is granted for a period of two years from the
time of approval by City Council and may be extended in one
year increments, with a maximum tenure of five years, upon
written request and review prior to expiration of the permit.
b. Per environmental documents, the applicant is required to
provide landscaping on the west side of Broadway and on the
south side of Faivre and also install a silt fence on the
southern border of the storage area. Landscaping on Broadway.
Faivre and the silt fence must be installed within 30 days of
the approval of the permit.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 3
c. Applicant to provide adequate water supplies for firefighting
purposes (hydrant, dedicated storage tank or standpipe).
d. Office trailers must be a State approved commercial coach with
sanitation facilities.
e. Applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting
programs when a specific project is proposed.
f. Street dedication is required to provide ultimate half-width of
36 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the site on Faivre and 27th
Street.
g. Failure to comply with conditions of approval of complaints
filed shall constitute grounds for review and possible
revocation of the use permit.
h. Building permit is required.
i. Site plan approval by City staff and landscaping subject to the
approval of the City Landscape Architect is required.
*j. No hazardous or combustible materials are to be stored on the
site. No materials that require placarding by DOT {Department
of Transportation), either Federal or State will be allowed.
*k. The manifest of materials being stored on the site will be made
available to the Planning Department and a designated member of
the Montgomery Planning Committee on 24 hour notice.
*l. No maintenance/repair of trucks will be allowed on site.
Applicant to provide paved access for fire apparatus and a knox
box.
*n. A monitoring program for the CUP be developed by staff and
checked once every 3 months. Any problems should be brought to
the attention of the Montgomery Planning Committee.
Conditions j thru n have been recommended by either the MPC Subcommittee
or the MPC.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North M-54 Vacant land, open storage
South M-54 Vacant land, Otay River
East M-54 Contractor's equipment yard, concrete company
West M-54 Tank cleaning service
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990 Page 4
Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is a 2.5 acre vacant parcel of land located on the
southwest corner of Boulevard and Faivre Streets. The site is presently
flat and clear of brush. Current access to the site is from the
southeast corner of Faivre and 27th Street.
Proposed Use
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
temporary use of the 2.5 acre existing flat and clear areas of the site.
The site includes both vehicle and trailer storage and used auto and
truck sales. Two mobile offices with sanitary facilities for truck
drivers are also located on the site. The site plan shows 63 truck
trailer spaces (42 spaces for 40 foot trailers and 21 spaces for 20 foot
trailers as well as space for the sale of approximately 45 cars). Truck
trailers stored on the site could include a variety of items including
household goods and furniture. The hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to
lO:O0 p.m. Monday through Sunday.
No permanent improvements or structures are proposed, no grading is
proposed other than finish grading for the project.
D. ANALYSIS
The project site is designated "Whitelands" on the Montgomery Specific
Plan and is slated for "special comprehensive study" in the near future.
The plan also suggests that this parcel of land be incorporated within
the proposed "Otay River Regional Park and Open Space Preserve." The land
is zoned M-54, City adopted County zoning which allows the proposed uses.
Because the site is located within the Whitelands study area and is being
considered by the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and the
City of Chula Vista for use as a Regional Park/Open Space Preserve. The
Planning Department has concluded that it will be a number of years
before a specific land use designation for this area is determined.
During this "interim" period until the comprehensive study is completed
and the specific land use designation is determined, the landowner should
be allowed viable economical use of their land, although on a temporary
basis.
Approving this permit for a limited period of time (two years, with a
maximum tenure of five years), the use would be consistent with the
intent of the plan and would protect the publics future interest in the
"Whitelands".
In response to the environmental sensitivity of the area south of the
site, the applicant is proposing to install a silt fence on the southern
border of the property as well as installing a fence around the entire
site to help discourage illegal dumping that is prevalent in this area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 5
E. FINDINGS
1. The proposed storage area would provide for the storage of various
items of material and equipment that are useful to the continued
operation of businesses within the community. Used car and truck
sales provide a necessary service to the community.
2. The proposed storage area and used car and truck sales areas as
conditioned surrounded by industrial uses and will not result in
impacts from aesthetic degradation which would adversely affect
humans or surrounding properties.
3. The proposed storage area and used car and truck sales as
conditioned will comply with the applicable conditions, codes and
regulations for the Montgomery area.
4. The site is located in the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit allowing
this use for a temporary period, and the Planning Departments
ability to phase out this use if open space is determined to be the
best for the area, this project will be consistent with the
applicable plans and policies.
WPC 7994P
MAIN ST.
THRIFT
SHOp
OPEN
VACANT
FAIVRE ST.
TANK CLEANING SERVICE roll, S
PALLET SToR~,E, EQ Li i pl,,41~rNT
N4 ~N L/FACTU/a~NG /'O. CON C[~ET~
I
PROJECT
LOCATION
I
-'~O'~-~'y 7 F"~-OO~PL~'~'N -- '
(NORTHERN MOST BOUNDARY)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I CITY OF SAIN~' DIEGO []1~[][]
"' /~I F H. G. FENTON ~ I'LOCATOR -)
~ ~Yk co~P~.~
(~1 ~° ~/so. W.ST CO..E. OF ~
~NDRTH ~ ~- -- '"' ~ ~""°~ow~ ~ ~,v., ST. ~
March 28, 1990
File # ZB-192(A)
TO: Ken Lee, Principal P lan~e,r
VIA: Clifford L. Swans/F~ Deputy Director of Public
Works/City Engineer ~/~
FROM: William. A. Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer/~'~
Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Enginee .
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Vehicle Parking and
Storage at the Southwest Corner of Broadway and Faivre
Street.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal.
We do not propose the inclusion of engineering conditions of
approval for the Conditional Use Permit. However, we request
that you provide the applicant with the list of items which will
be required in conjunction with the building permit.
These items are required under the authority of the City of Chula
Vista Municipal Code:
1. Sewer, impact, reimbursement and traffic signal fees will be
assessed when the building permit is issued.
2. A construction permit will be required for any work
performed in the street right-of-way.
3. Public improvements may include, but will not be limited to:
A. Driveway approaches
B. Sidewalk ramp
C. Curb, gutter and sidewalk
D. Asphalt concrete paving
E. Street lights
4. Street dedication to provide half-width of 36 feet along
frontages on Faivre Street and 27th Street, and 57 feet
half-width along the frontage on Broadway.
5. Street widening to provide 26 feet from centerline to new
curb along frontages of Faivre Street and 27th Street, and
47 feet from centerline of Broadway to new curb.
6. Improvement plans.
7. A grading permit if the exemptions in the Chula Vista
grading ordinance are not met.
8. This property is not in the 100 year flood plain.
HSB:jg
REQUEST FOR CONMENTS
Chula Vista Planning Department
March 22, 1990
· ~ Graphics
~F~-._~ Fire Marshal _ Landscape Architect
Building & Housing Env. Review Coordinator
-- -- ~y~__Chula Vista School District
X Advance Planning _X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
.~~ D~velopment,Div. Ken Lee (Notice only)
/I r~m:/(~ Barbara Reid (Current Planning)~
Planning Department
k~ ~ Planning.~e~p~rtmc
P~CC'Qfl-1 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
P- Precise Plan
· I)~e Permit / Modification}
ZAV- Variance Location~ Southwest corner of Broadw~
PCZ- Zone Change
and Faivre Street
PCM- Miscellaneous Request Modification from previously
~UD- Planned Unit Development ~DDlied for master conditional use permit
P~CA- Zoning Text ~endment ]~or an application (1) vehicle and trai166
~PA- General Plan ~endment storaqe (2} auto and truck sales (3)incll~dir
_,, Other
cus%odial and securitS facilities
Deposit Account Number DP-
Montgome~Planning Committee
~l=a~'b~i~m~=(~omm~i~Meeting Dat~_ April 18, 1990
Zoning Ad'ministrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by:__ April 5, 1990
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED
REQUEST FOR COMblENTS
UAR 2 3 1990
Chula Vista Plannfng Department
~J¥
DATE: March 22, 1990 DEPT. OFBUILDING AND HOUSING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA
~ __~_Graphics '
j"/.;~ A,).~X_Fire Marshal _ Landscape Architect
._.~X Building & Housing _ Env. Review Coordinator
~X Advance Planning _X Chula Vista School District
._J___Sweetwater Union H.S.District
__X Engineering/Land Development Div. __ Ken Lee (Notice only)
~FRO~.-" _Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
,~, Planning Department
~CC'QO-1 Conditional Use Permit Project Name, H.G. Fenton Conditional
~' Precise Plan --
· UsP Per~i~ (Modification)
Z_AV- Variance -
Location~ Southwest corner of Broadwa~
P~CZ- Zone Change
and Faivre Street
~CM- Miscellaneous Request Modification from previously
PUD- Planned Unit Development aDDlied for master conditional use permit
~CA- Zoning Text Amendment ~or an application (1) vehicle and trail66
~PA- General Plan Amendment
Jtoraqe (2/ auto and truck sales (3)includiF
_ Other
custodial and securit~ facilities
Deposit Account Number DP-
Montgomer~Planning Committee
~l=~F~i~=~i=m~i~mMeeting Date April 18. 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by:_ April 5, 1990
COMMENTS:
REVISED
April 9, 1990
File # ZB-192(A)
TO: Ken Lee, Principal ~ner
^X
VIA: Clifford L. Swanso~Deputy Director of Public
Works/City Engine~/
William A. Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer/~
FROM: Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer ~///×
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Vehio~4 Parking and
Storage at the Southwest Corner of Broadway and Faivre
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal and
recommends approval subject to the following condition:
1. Street dedication to provide ultimate half-width of 36 feet
of right of way adjacent to the site on Faivre and 27th
Street.
The following items will be required in conjunction with building
permits under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, if
building valuation exceeds $10,000 or whatever limit is in effect
at the time the permit is issued:
1. Street widening on Faivre Street and 27th Street to provide
26 feet from Centerline to edge of pavement. Public
improvements may include, but not be limited to:
A. Asphalt concrete dike
B. Asphalt concrete paving
C. Street lights(s)
2. A construction permit will be required for any work
performed in the street right of way.
3. Submittal of improvement plans
4. A grading permit if the exemptions in the grading ordinance
are not met.
5. Sewer, traffic signal, and impact fees will be assessed when
the building permit is issued.
HSB:jg
(RJ~FORMS~CUP#1.DOC)
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION
BROADWAY AND FAIVRE STREET
This proposal is for short term temporary uses of the
property as outlined in the application. The proposed
use would occur on a parcel that is currently flat ahd
clear, therefore, no removal of brush or grading would
take place, other than to remove existing trash and
debris and to put a finish grade on the lot.
The proposed use to be allowed under this Conditional
Use Permit (subject to review by the Zoning
Administrator) is in demand in this area as evidenced by
the large volume of calls that this vacant lot
generates. As well, this type of use would appear to be
very important to industrial users in the South Bay as
an adjunct to the existing commercial/industrial
developments. As we propose for this Conditional Use
Permit, and the City's ability to place time limits or
renewal dates on said uses, we believe that the public
safety and welfare and impacts to properties in the
vicinity will be very limited to non-existent. We also
believe that the impact of the proposed use to the
general plan of the City will be at a minimum due to the
temporary nature of the uses and the City's ability to
modify or not renew the Conditional Use Permit.
Utilities are available to the site from existing
adjacent service. Power is currently available on-site.
Telephone is available from existing overhead lines
adjacent to the site. Water is available from existing
laterals to the site.
Sanitary facilities will be provided in the temporary
office trailers positioned on site. Fencing to screen
the site from the street and for security, will be
provided with access to and from the site only where
noted on plan. No access to adjacent vacant land will
be allowed. A provision of the lease with any Lessee
will strictly and specifically prohibit any use or
storage of toxic or hazardous materials on this site.
Landscaping to be installed as outlined on plan.
Ref:MW:CUP.BRO
4.A PUBLIC HEARING PCC-90-1M - Request for a conditional
use permit for vehicle and trailer
storage and auto and truck sales
including custodial and security
facilities at the southwest corner of
Broadway and Faivre Streets
Assistant Planner Reid stated that the applicant, H.G. Fenton
Company, was proposing the use of 2.5 acres of land located at
the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre Street for vehicle
and trailer storage and used auto and truck sales. These had
been considered on a Master Site Plan and are now site specific.
Ms. Reid then indicated the following corrections made to the
Staff Report:
Page 2, condition e, line 6: should read "slats on Broadway and
Faivre" instead of "B~ and Faivre".
City Data Sheet, page 8, General Plan Land Use Designation of the
Site: should be "open space Whitelands special study area". In
the south it is "open space Whitelands special study".
Conditions discussed by the Montgomery Planning Committee
included:
b. No hazardous or combustible materials are to be stored on
the site.
In reply to C/M Roberts' question asked about
enforcement, Ms. Reid replied that the applicant
maintains that trucks transporting hazardous waste are
plainly marked. Such trucks are not stored on the
site. The only guarantee is the applicant's word and
the fact that the Planning Department does have access
to the manifest and can check.
Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid added that
hazardous materials are manifested from the time of
their creation until their ultimate disposal.
Committee Member Creveling suggested the following
wording: "No materials that require placarding by DOT
(Department of Transportation), either Federal or
State, will be allowed."
d. No maintenance of trucks will be allowed on site.
Committee Member Castro questioned the difference
between "maintenance" and "repair" indicated in another
PCC. Ms. Reid said the wording could be changed to
"repair" as a more accurate term if desired.
Committee Member Palmer said that based on her
experience as a school bus driver checking~--~out.
before departure was not considered maintenance
although changing the oil was. She said she would
prefer that the wording be "maintenance/repair" since
safety checking is one thing, maintenance another.
Committee Member McFarlin inquired about enforcement.
Ms. Reid said that usually CUPs are enforced on a
complaint basis only, however, staff could be requested
to inspect on a periodic basis.
Ms. Barth said that in addition to the stipulations in
the lease, Mr. Wanton makes a weekly unannounced
inspection of the site.
e. Per environmental documents, the applicant is required to
provide chainlink fencing surrounding the site on the west
side of Broadway, on the south side of Faivre and on the
east side of 27th Street and also install a silt fence on
the southern border of the storage area. The fencing which
will include slats on Broadway and Faivre and the silt fence
must be installed within 30 days of the approval of the
permit.
During her presentation, Ms. Barth indicated that in
addition to the installation of the slats in the
fencing along Broadway and Faivre, additional land-
scaping had been requested in this area. She pointed
out that the landscaping would be inside the slatted
fence and not visible to the public. Their recom-
mendation was for one or the other and asked the MPC's
preference. Mr. Berlanga said he agreed that the
landscaping was unnecessary at that location.
Committee Member McIntyre asked if the silt fence would
be 6-foot high. Ms. Barth explained that it was a
lower, tighter mesh fence to keep the debris and runoff
out of the area. Ms. McFarlin said this fence appeared
to be more accessible from the south for unauthorized
entrance. Ms. Barth said that the applicant was
willing to install a 6-foot fence with a mesh (silt)
fence at the bottom if desired. She added that regular
inspections were made to ensure that the site is kept
clean.
f. Applicant to provide adequate water supplies for fire-
fighting purposes (hydrant, dedicated storage tank or
standpipe).
Committee Member Creveling asked how the applicant was
to determine what was "adequate" and felt the fire flow
density needed to be expressed; a problem for the water
company. He considered the several items listed for
firefighting purposes to be excessive and suggested
that a "dry standpipe" be considered acceptable since
the facility is a temporary one and hydrants and
dedicated storage tanks are not needed. Planner Reid
indicated that the Fire Department's intent is to work
with the applicant to determine the specific needs.
Mr. Creveling noted that the standpipe doesn't have to
be wet except when the fire occurs and there are
pumpers for that purpose.
Committee Member Berlanga said he had the same concern
but questioned whether the applicant would require a
water tank for their own use.
Committee Member Creveling suggested that the applicant
look at the provisions made at the "J" Street Marina.
There is a pamphlet by the NFDA describing the
standpipes used in marinas which might serve the
purpose.
j. Street dedication is required to provide ultimate half-width
of 36 feet o~ right-of-way adjacent to the site on Faivre
and 27th Street.
Committee Member Castro said that he did not believe
such a dedication should be required as the period was
for only 2 years.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
Linda Barth, representing H.G. Fenton, introduced Allan Jones and
Mark Watton of the firm and mentioned that City Traffic Engineer
Rosenberg and Dan Marum (JHK representative) were both present to
answer questions regarding the traffic situation. She reviewed
the changes made since the last meeting and the Subcommittee
meeting. She indicated that the lease agreement addresses the
hazardous material item. Some concern had been expressed about
the access on Broadway and Faivre, so all access will not come
off Faivre.
In response to a question, the applicant replied that there was
no provision for security guards living on the sites.
Ms. Reid indicated that the School District had changed their
mind about charging 12 cents/square foot and recommended that the
charge be deleted when and if the Committee approved the Negative
Declaration.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC to find the project will have no significant environmental
impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-8M
with the corrections outlined by staff on the school fees.
[(Creveling/Castro) 7-0.]
MS (Palmer/Castro) that based on the findings contained in
Section "E" of the staff report, to approve the request, PCC-90-
1M, for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary vehicle and
trailer storage and used auto and truck sales at the southwest
corner of Broadway and Faivre Streets subject to the conditions
in the staff report as modified.
M/C Palmer said she was aware of Mr. Creveling's technical
knowledge about combustible materials, however, she was of the
opinion that retaining the wording (Condition b) of "No hazardous
or combustible materials" is a more encompassing statement than
"No materials requiring placarding by the DOT..." The
possibility continues to exist that a truck owner will without
proper manifest - bring hazardous or combustible materials in and
it is needful that the prohibition be made as encompassing as
possible. Chairman Wheeland asked if a possibility could arise
where two trucks could be parked in close proximity and the
combination of the materials stored within those trucks fit the
"hazardous or combustible" definition. Mr. Creveling said this
was a definite possibility. He commented that if the prohibition
is not properly defined, it will not hold up in a Court of Law.
The onus of the enforcement is on the author and the suggested
wording offered by Ms. Palmer is not definitive enough.
Committee Member Palmer said she understood the City Council was
working on a CUP monitoring program and she would like this CUP
included in that program. Chairman Wheeland agreed.
Committee Member McFarlin said she would like to see all the
Committee's expressed concerns reflected in the motion.
Committee Member Castro suggested that a monitoring program
staffed by volunteers be formed similar to the one that checks
the parking spaces for the handicapped. Ms. Reid said she would
bring that idea up to the Planning Director.
Committee Member Creveling remarked that the competition would
probably be the first to report violations of this nature.
MOTION ~ESTATED
MSUC that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the
report to approve the request, PCC-90-1M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for a temporary vehicle and trailer storage and used auto
and truck sales at the southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre
Streets subject to the conditions in the staff report as
corrected. Included in this motion are any items discussed that
the Committee would like to have included in the Council's
proposed CUP monitoring program, and a definition of hazardous
material. The fencing and the hydrant issues will be subject to
approval of staff. [(Palmer/Castro) 7-0.]
DATE: June 12, 1990
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
FROM: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Additional Traffic Information Pertaining to the Proposed Truck
Storage Facility to be located in the Montgomery Area/Application by
Fenton Western Properties.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions raised by the
Montgomery Planning Committee and documented in your memorandum to Linda
Bartholomew dated March 28, 1990. This memorandum is organized in the order
of the questions raised by the Montgomery Planning Committee followed by a
general statement responding to all the questions posed.
1. Mace Street Site
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project completion at Main
and Mace Street and at Hilltop and Main.
Response
Traffic volumes on Main Street in the vicinity of Mace Street and
Hill top Drive are approximately 21,000 vehicles per day. This
volume based on the City's Level of Service standards represents a
Level of Service A for a four lane major street facility. Traffic
volumes on Mace Street in the vicinity of the project presently is
2,630 vehicles per day. This represents Level of Service value A
for a two-lane collector-type facility. Hill top Drive north of Main
Street presently carries approximately 5,600 vehicles per day. This
value represents Level of Service B for a two-lane collector
facility. It is estimated that the Mace Street site will produce
approximately 168 trips per day assuming an equivalency of two tri~s
per truck. This volume added to the existing traffic counts is
considered negligible and does not alter the level of service
previously stated. Intersection traffic analysis at Hilltop and
~lain with project traffic resulted in no change in level of service
at this latter intersection.
ADT at peak hours at these intersections
Response
This question isn't totally clear since ADT and peak hour represent
different time periods. I presume that the question relates to the
peak hour performance of the two intersections. With regard to the
intersection of Main and Mace, the traffic generated by the project
during the peak period does not result in an unacceptable level of
service. At the signalized intersection of Hilltop and Main the
level of service remains at B during the peak period as noted on
Table 2, page 3-2 of the consultant s report.
Barbara Reid -2- June 13, 1990
References ~method of determination or studies that have been used
to obtain the above information)
.Rgsponse
The main source document is the Final Technical Report Montgomery
Traffic Analysis prepared for the City by JHK & Associates dated
June ll, 1990; also data obtained from the City Traffic Engineering
office and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Addressment of access - engineering report showed access from Mace;
Main should be included as an access point.
Response
The traffic analysis performed by the consultant for the City of
Chula Vista included the intersection of Main and Mace Street as a
critical access point for the Mace Street site.
2. PCC 90-2M West End of Faivre
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project
.Rgsponse
The average daily traffic volume on Faivre Street west of Beyer/
Broadway is 2,179 vehicles per day. The traffic volume on Beyer in
the vicinity of Faivre Street is 12,700 vehicles per day. The
traffic volume on Main Street in the vicinity of Broadway is
approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. All of these volumes
represent a Level of Service A. The Faivre site at the west end,
site 2, generates approximately 528 equivalent vehicle trips per
day. This volume when added to existing traffic count does not
impact daily levels of service.
Determine what hours most trucks will be accessing the site (i.e.,
50% before 7:00 a.m., 25% during peak hours, 25% after 6:00 p.m.)
Response
Based on information provided by the Fenton Western Properties, the
percent of truck activity occurring during the a.m. peak period is
estimated to be 20%, and during the p.m. peak period is also 20%,
and during the non-peak period approximately 60%.
Determine peak hour traffic
Barbara Reid -3- June 13, 1990
Response
A.M. and p.m. peak hour traffic produced by the site at the west end
of Faivre is shown on Table 1, page 2-8, of the consultant's
report. The highest value shown occurred during the p.m. peak
period in the outbound direction and is 80 equivalent trips during
that period of time.
What other streets will be impacted by traffic? IMain Street,
Palm?, etc.)
Response
The traffic produced by the site at the west end of Faivre was
assumed to impact mostly Main Street for a test of the worst-case
condition. This is based primarily on the proximity of the site to
Main Street, a major east/west facility providing connections to I-5
and 1-805.
References/Sources
Response
Same as third response noted in item 1.
3. PCC-90-IM Beyer & Faivre
Verify that figures provided of 12,670 ADT before the project and
12,786 after the project are still current and correct, Isince a
specific site plan has been submitted).
Response
According to City of Chula Vista's traffic flow count information,
the volume of traffic on Beyer/Broadway in the vicinity, of Faivre
is 12,670 vehicles per day rounded to the nearest l0 vehicles. The
traffic generated by the two sites on Faivre Street equal
approximately 800 trips per day. Thus an increase in traffic on
Beyer/Broadway of 800 vehicles per day would result in an average
daily traffic volume of approximately 13,470 vehicles per day; thus,
the previous estimate of 12,786 is modified slightly by the new
information provided by the consultant's report.
Verify that LOS is still A, as shown.
Response
According to the City's LOS standard, the adjusted volume of 13,470
represents an A LOS.
Barbara Reid -4- June 13, 1990
Access should be addressed. Is the main access Faivre, Broadway or
Main? Secondary Access?
Response
For the traffic study performed by the consultant, a worst-case
scenario was assumed in which 100% of the access for both sites on
Faivre Street would utilize Faivre Street exclusively. Secondary
access was not assumed, and it is recommended by the City Traffic
Engineer that access for these sites be restricted to Faivre Street
only.
Provide hours trucks will be accessing the site.
Response
Same as second response in Item No. 2.
References/Sources
Response
Same as third response noted in item 1.
WPC 7933P
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
BROADWAY & FAIVRE STREETS
ATTACHMENT
Application for Conditional Use Permit allowing
temporary use of the existing flat and clear area. Such
uses as proposed are vehicle sales, vehicle parking and T~=~
storage, eq%~~ temporary offices, custodial
and security facilities, er etb-r walat~d nctivitics on
a temporary basis.
ADDENDUM TO FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY
OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-90-SM
A. BACKGROUND
The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide
that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant
project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for
significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated
in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC
finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact
or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may
recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the
environmental document for the project.
Previous Project
The previous project involved a master conditional use permit for
temporary use of existing flat and clear area of the site located at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Faivre. Such uses as proposed for the
site were building and material storage, vehicle and trailer storage,
records storage is portable metal containers, an equipment yard, temporary
offices, a lumber yard, and other related activities on a temporary
basis. Specific uses as proposed, would be subject to review by the
Zoning Administrator.
Proposed Project
The current proposal involves a conditional use permit for temporary use
of the existing flat and cleared land. The proposal is for
vehicles/trailer storage and calls for 63 truck/trailer spaces (42 for 40
foot trailers and 21 spaces for 20 foot trailers), and for a used
car/truck sales lot with space for 45 cars, including two mobile office
trailers, the trailer closest to Broadway would be fore sales of the used
cars and trucks, the one closest to Faivre would be for trailer and
vehicle storage.
The 2.5 site would be divided in between two land uses with the used car
and truck sales area on the eastern portion of the site and the vehicle
and trailer storage on the western portion.
Access to both uses would be off Faivre and run across the north portion
of the site.
B. ANALYSIS
1. Compliance with Threshold/Standards Policy
a. Fire
As part of the project adequate water supply is required for
fire fighting - hydrant, storage tank or stand pipe, paved
access is required for fire apparatus and a knox box is required.
b. Traffic
Specific questions raised by the Montgomery Planning Committee
included current ADT and LOS before and after the project, hours
most trucks would be accessing the site, peak hour traffic,
other streets that would be impacted by traffic. These concerns
are addressed in the attached memo from Hal Rosenberg, City
Traffic Engineer and the attached traffic study.
To summarize the findings of the Montgomery Traffic Analysis,
the LOS before and after the project meets the City of Chula
Vista's threshold standards and, therefore, no traffic
mitigation is required for this project.
2. Identification of Environmental Effects
a. Illegal Dumping
To help limit illegal dumping activity into the Otay River
Valley and help protect the environment, fencing of the entire
project site would be required.
b. Wetlands
A wetland has been identified along the southern border of the
site which intrudes onto the project site in a small area on the
southeastern border. The proposed use, as it is situated on the
site, will not impact this high quality, willow riparian wetland.
c. Drainage
Due to the concern of "free" water runoff from the proposed
car/trailer storage and the used car/truck lot into the Otay
River Valley, the applicant is required to construct a silt
fence along the southern border of the site to help protect the
environmentally sensitive wetland to the south.
-2-
d. School s
The Montgomery Planning Committee has in the past expressed
particular concern regarding the response of the School
Districts to the notice of initial study information as to the
~ bc~i'll policy of the School Districts. In this case, the Chula Vista
[. ~,,. ~.,c .~, School District will charge 12¢ per square foot (for the mobile
t," \~c~c~'~ ~" trailer office) and the Sweetwater School District will not
~,~ require impact fees.
C. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA guidelines and based upon the
above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed
project will result in only minor technical changes or conditions which
are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA and
recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning
Commission adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-90-8M, prior to
taking action on the proposed project.
DOUGLAS D. REID
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 7655P
-3-
negativ declaration-
PROJECT NAME: Beyer and Faivre Street
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Beyer and Faivre Streets
PROJECT APPLICANT: H.G. Fenton Material Company
CASE NO: IS-90-8M DATE: December 29, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project setting consists of approximately 1.3 acres of land located on
the southwest corner of Beyer and Faivre Streets and is presently flat and
clear of b~ush.
Surrounding uses include vacant land and open storage to the north, vacant
land and the Otay River to the south, contractor's storage yard to the
east, and a tank cleaning service to the west.
B. Project Description
The proposed project involves a master conditional use permit for
temporary use of existing flat and clear areas. Such uses as proposed for
the site are building and material storage, vehicle parking and storage,
records storage in portable metal containers, equipment yard, temporary
offices, a lumber yard, and other related activities on a temporary
basis. Specific uses, as they are proposed, are subject to review by the
Zoning Administrator.
No permanent improvements or structures are proposed. No grading, other
than finish grading, is proposed for this project.
In order to minimize the possibility of any significant environmental
impacts, the following actions are required by the applicant prior to the
approval of a specific use for the site by the Zoning Administrator:
Installation of solid fencing of the entire site and a silt fence, on
the south side of the proposed storage area and northerly of the
wetlands (see Section E.1 and E.3 and attached wetlands delineation
study).
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The site is located within the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit allowing the
use for a temporary period, this project will not affect long range plans
and policies. The present City-adopted County zoning of M-54, allows the
proposed uses.
city of chula vista planning department CIWOF
environmental review section CHL)L~
-2-
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The distance to the nearest fire station is 1-1/2 miles and the Fire
Department estimated reaction time is 6 minutes. With the
installation of a fire hydrant, a water tower, or a stand pipe, the
fire department will be able to provide adequate fire protection for
this project without an increase in equipment or personnel.
2. Police
The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of
service based on the threshold standards.
3. Traffic
The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and has
requested that the applicant, as part of the project, meet the
following conditions: dedication of 20 ft. right-of-way on Broadway
and complete full street improvements on Broadway and Faivre
Streets. With or without these conditions, the proposed project will
not adversely affect the existing levels of service on roads or
intersections in the vicinity.
4. Park/Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that the proposed
project would not exceed adopted threshold standards.
5. Drainage
Drainage facilities are adequate to serve this project.
6. Sewer
Sewer lines adjacent to the site are adequate to serve the proposed
project.
7. Water
The Sweetwater Authority has been notified and has not identified any
constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Illegal Dumping
There is some concern that the proposed development of this site
might improve the access to the Otay River Valley which may encourage
-3-
additional dumping of garbage in this environmentally sensitive
area. To limit this illegal activity, fencing of the project site
between the proposed storage area and the sensitive area should be
incorporated into the project.
2. Wetlands
Due to concern of the possible existence of a wetland located on the
project site, a wetlands delineation study was conducted (PSBS
#863). From this study, it was determined that a wetland does exist
along the southern property boundary and only intrudes onto the site
in a very small area on the southeastern border.
According to this report, the proposed use, as it is situated on the
site, will not impact this high quality, willow riparian wetland.
3. Drainage
Although the drainage facilities have been determined to be adequate
by the City Engineering Department, there is some concern with the
"free" water runoff from the proposed storage areas into the Otay
River Valley and it is recommended that a silt fence be installed
along the southern border of the proposed storage area to help
protect the environmentally sensitive wetland to the south.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
As it is a requirement of project approval that the applicant be required
to install solid fencing around the perimeter of the site and a silt fence
on the south side of the proposed storage area and northerly of the
wetlands, no further mitigation will be required to avoid significant
environmental effects.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed temporary storage yard will not degrade the quality of
the environment.
-4-
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed temporary storage yard does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental 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 proposed temporary storage yard will not result in any adverse
environmental effects that are cumulative in nature.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed temporary storage yard contains no environmental effects
which could cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Steve Griffin, Current Planning
Barbara Reid, Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advanced Planning
Lee McEachern, Planning Intern
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watten/Bruce Warren
2. Documents
Title 19 Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista General Plan
EIR, City of Chula Vista
Wetlands Delineation Study, PSBS #863
-5-
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
92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 7029P
city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF
environmental review section.CHULAVISTA
Case No. /_:-
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE BROADWAY AND FAIVRE STREET
2. PROJECT LOCATION'(Street address or description) S.W. Corner
at Broadway and Faivre Street
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 629-040-25
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A"
4. Name of Applicant H.G. Fenton Material Co.
Address Post Office BOX §4 Phone 566-2000
City San Diego State Califnrnia Zip 92!!2
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Hark Watton/Rr~Jrm
Address Post Offic~Box 64 Phone 566_~nnn
City San Diego State California Zip 9~ll~
Relation to Applicant Employee
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
Rezontng/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit T Site Plan
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 X Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
· Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
' Approvals Required
E)I 3 (Rev. 12/82)
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 57,600 or acreage 1.3
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. None
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
'a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: I bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/totel acres)
e. Net density (OU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
t. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Industrial/Commercial
b. Floor area ~ 500 Sq. Ft. Height of structure(s) ~15 Ft.
c. Type of construction used in the structure Temporary portable
buildings or trailers
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Adjacent to paved city
streets - Broadway to East, Faivre Street to North
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided ~J~5
f. Estimated number of employees per shift ~ , Number of
shifts ~ ~ S Total k/'~/Y~ r~ ~
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estlmate*
A~-s-a~:q~s-t~o these questions will d~p~,,d u,, typ~ of te,, ' . It' ;s
anticipated that in any case the~g will be minimal and
employees could r~very few. If a proposed use is auto or
truck s~ activity could result in a small number of customers.
~r~ this ~oul .......... mal
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate South Bay
4 Mile Radius. Estimate from inquiries received from area bus,ness
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Outside storaQe - up to 100% of use.
j. Hours of operation 6 AM t9 10 PM
k. Type of exterior lighting Security lighting, if required, shiel'ded to
direct light away from street and adjacent structures.
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project Temporary uses as outlined in Attachment "A"
b. Type of facilities provided None
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 *
· To be determined with use as allowed under Conditional Use Permit
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
None
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Haximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maxinum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Possible electrical consumption
by temonrary nffice structure (if used),
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) None
$. If the project will result in any e~io)q~ent opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Tie~s-dc~c~d= ~,~ ~= uf L~,,,~u,a,y ,s~.
Employment may ranqe f-~em~)to several employees.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
stte?None-H.G. Fenton Material Co. has a policy of not allowing hazardous
materials on company owned property.
7. How ma~y estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? The tempor&ry uses contemplated should result in minimal
traffic impact.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
None
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SEI'~ING
1. Geolo~
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. H~drolog~
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? no
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? yes
Site is adjacent to the' Otay River.
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Vacant parcel across street to Northeast, Storag~ nf hnxps
and debris across Faivre Street to Northwest.
South Ota,¥ River
East Nelsop and Sloan operation and Desert lnd~,~trim~
across Broadwa~ .
West lnoustrial use truck parkinq and miscellaneous stnra~P
across 27th Street
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,
hm~ many and what type?) No
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
The proposed uses of this area would be on a temporary basis. No permanent
improvements on structures are proposed. The proposed use takes advantage of
the existing flat and clear portion of the parcel. No grading, other than finish
grading, is contemplated or proposed. No removal of large brush or trees is
contemplated or proposed.
In opinion of applicant, no negative impacts will occur to existing adjacent land
uses due to proposed use and activity on subject parcel.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or Agent*
Vice President
Fenton-Western Properties
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ?_r-~_,~
CITY DATA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~-~- ./7/
North /~ _ ~/~
South '~- ~',
East ~ ~
We s t ~ - ~ ~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use ~~, ~k~-~
des~ gnation ~te:
South .~
East ~~~ ~ ~
West ~ ' ~ ~
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
rfo~ adjacent
Is the pro3ect ar? des ted ~va open space or
to an area so deslgnate~
~/~
Is the project located ad2~.~o 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 i~the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ~. ~, ~C-r~
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? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energv 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 Planningor~tativ~ Date
G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. .Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the proje, ct be subject 'to any existing flooding hazards~
c. Will the project create any~flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and d~scription of existing on-site
e. Are they adequate to serve ~he project? x~ ~
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
L.O.S. A ,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? LF/~~
If so, specify the general ~ature o~f the necessary actions.
~ll -
Case No.
3. _Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?,_ I ~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ 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~ ~,~-~ ~v,<~ ,~( ~
- 12 -
Case No. ~2~:~-C~C]-!~:?~t
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 ? ~ ~
l~Ox (NO2) /IZ X 20.0 : ~,~ ,-,
Particulates -
Sulfur /IZ ~ 1.5 /L~
/IiL X .78 = ~:~--
8. Wfi~te Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ ~' Liquid b\\A~f~.
Uhat is the location and size of existing sewer l~nes on or adjacent
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
acilities/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.)
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? I, f'
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 ~,~{' ~-~[ w~-,~ J~
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
TO: ____=__Graphics
___~__X Fire Marshal _,, landscape Architect
'-___~__X Building & Housing _ Env. Review Coordinator
~X_Advance Planning X Chula Vista School District
--__~_X Engineering/Land Development Div. X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
Ken Lee (Notice only)
FROM: Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
P)anning Department
P~CC-gQ-] Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
~' Precise Plan
_U~ Permit I Modification/
Z~AV- Variance Location~ Southwest corner of Broadway
P~CZ- Zone Change
-- and Paivre Street
Miscellaneous
Request~Modification from previously
Planned Unit Development JDDlied for master conditional use permit
PCA- Zoning Text Amendment
for an application (1) vehicle and trail,iA
G~PA- General Plan Amendment -
~%oraqe (2) auto and truck sales (3)includi
-- Other
custodial and security facilities
Deposit Account Number DP-
MontgomeryPlanning Committee
~l:mr~Ei~=~:mmmi~i, mt Meeting Dat~ April 18. ]990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by:__ April 5, 1990
............................................................ . .
-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
October 2, 1989
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
VIA: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist~
SUBJECT: Comments on Initial Studies for Interim Uses in Otay River Valley
IS-90-7M
1. Development of a storage area on the Fenton parcel southwest of the
end on Mace Street (south of Main Street) has the potential to adversely
impact the existing sycamore trees located on the northwest portion of
that parcel. In addition, the presence of the sycamore trees indicates
that the entire parcel may be an existing wetland. I suggest requiring
a biological survey so that a wetland determination can be made. If the
area is a wetland, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit should
be required as a condition of approval.
2. I am concerned that development of the site for storage or required
roadway improvements may improve access to Otay River Valley and encourage
adaitional dumping of garbage which is already a serious problem. Fencing
should be required between the proposed storage and/or roadway improvement
and habitat areas.
iS-90-8M
1. I suggest requiring a biological survey to determine if the site, or
any portion of it, is a wetland. If it is a wetland, a Section 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be required.
2. See #2 under IS-90-7M.
IS-90-9iq
1. See #1 under IS-90-8M.
2. See #2 under IS-90-7M.
3. The attached map shows that a portion of the proposed storage is within
the Coastal Zone. A Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal
Commission is required for the portion of the proposed storage (and any
roadway improvements, fencing, etc.) planned within the Coastal Zone
boundary. Commission issuance of permits follows local action on the
proposed project. As a condition of approval, a Commission issued permit
(or de minimus waiver) should be required.
RP:sc
Attachment
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
November 15, 1989 ~0~ ~ 7 108~
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: C.U.P. Applications - Faivre Street and Mace Street
Case No: IS-90-7M, IS-90-8M, IS-90-9M
Dear Barbara:
Enclosed is the Wetlands Delineation Studies covering
the areas as we discussed. Keith Merkel seems to have
covered the areas of concern.
Let me know what I can expect for a schedule to complete
the C.U.P. process so I can make budget forecasts for my
next fiscal year.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Vacant Lands Manager
MW:cfd
Ref:MW:CCVlll5
Enclosure
c Sourest BJ
~'~ I P°st Office g°x 98§' N~ti°na' City' Calif°rni~ 9205~ (N61o~Im47b~r ~~
~ ...... PSBS #863
H. G. Fenton Material Company
P. O. Box 64
San Diego, CA 92112
Dear Mr. Watton:
Wetland delineation studies have been completed on the three areas requested in
your 30 October 1989 letter. Each area is discussed separately below, and each is shown
graphically in an enclosed figure.
All the delineations were conducted on 1 November 1989 by Keith W. Merkel and
Adam Koltz, using the Federal Unified Method, routine delineation procedures (Federal
Interagency Committee on Wetland Delineation 1989). Lacking topography on the two
Faivre Street properties, boundaries are tied to plotted objects such as power poles and
fences. A previously received topographic map of the Mace Street property was used in
cielination at this site and information was then transferred to the project plan.
I. Beyer Boulevard/Faivre Street Property (Figure 1)
The wetland limit is basically contiguous with the lower slope of the berm
along the southern property boundary. The wetland only intrudes onto the
property in a very small area along the eastern part of the southern property
boundary. The proposed use, as shown, will not impact this high quality,
willow riparian wetland. The wetland fringe along this site is characterized
by the pre-dominance of Sandbar Willow (Salix hindsiana), Arroyo Willow (S.
lasiolepis) and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).
II. Faivre Street (West) Property (Figure 2)
The southern, lower slope of the existing berm on this property serves as the
northern botmdary of an area characterized by alluvial fan scrub and a willow
and mulefat riparian wetland. Only at the eastern end of the property does
the wetland intercede over the berm and onto the previously graded area.
This small area represents a previously cleared wetland characterized by the
re-emergence of wetland species, including Sandbar Willow (Salix hindsiana
var. leucodendroides), Mulefat (Bacchads salisi/blia), Castor Bean (Ricflms
communis), Western Ragweed (Ambrosia psilostach3'a), and Jimsonweed
(Datura ~vdghtii). This disturubed wetland area appears to be groundwater
fed and due to its adjacency to the higher quality riverene wetlands its
recove~ should be encouraged. This would entail avoidance of this area by
refinement of the project area.
Mr. Mark Watton 2 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
Of significance during this survey was the sighting in the alluvial fan scrub
vegetation of a California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica), a sensitive
species most often found in sage scrub habitat. This bird would not be
expected to utilize any portions of the proposed project area and the project
would not be expected to have a adverse impact on the species.
III. Mace Street Property (Figure 3)
On this property, the majority of the wetland is well south of the previously
graded area now proposed for material storage. The intervening area is
disturbed alluvial land and prehistoric riverwash deposits which were
previously mined for sand and gravel. A few isolated wetlands have re-
emerged within this disturbed area, and are characterized by Curly Dock
(Rumex crispus), Mexican Tea (Chenopodium ambrosioMes), Mulefat, Castor
Bean, Cocklebur (Xanthium stmmarium), Giant Cane (Arundo donax),
Rabbitfoot Beardgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis). A few large Sycamores
(?latanus racemosa) also occur. Wetlands on the southern portion of the
property are extremely well developed willow riparian and Mulefat shrubland
communities.
Along the northern property boundary, parking lot drainage has created two
extremely small sump type wetlands of 5-10 feet in width, characterized by
such roadside ditch species as Curly Dock, Mexican Tea, scattered Rabbitfoot
Beardgrass, and seedling Mulefat. These areas are wetlands under the
jurisidiction of the Corps of Engineers covered under the Nationwide Permits
at 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and would not require special permitting for fill.
They are not within the jurisdiction of the CDFG. The loss of these two
wetlands would not be of importance.
Based on ()ur findings, we recommend that the cross hatched area on Figure
2 be removed from use. Additionally, we recommend that some sort of a low,
containment berm be placed along the site boundary to prevent runoff from
the storage lots and physically define the use area such that it does not slowly
expand. With these changes we believe that the proposed uses of the three
properties would not significantly impact the wetlands thereon, and would
have no impact to the high quality willow woodlands on the southern portions
or off-site to the south of the sites.
When more permanent development is proposed in these areas, fencing or other
buffers should be utilized to control dumping or access of humans and domestic animals
into the wetlands. It is recognized that this will have only an incremental effect, however,
it will provide some level of control on the "out of control" Otay River access situation.
Mr. Mark Watton 3 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call at (619) 474-3530.
Sincerely,
Keith W. Merkel
Vice President
LITERATURE CITED
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.
76pp. plus appendices.
stl
Enclosure: Figures 1, 2 and 3
Wetland
N
FIGURE 1. WETLAND DELINEATION --
BEYER BOULEVARD/FAIVRE STREET SITE
~s~s
Wcttand
~ Allu,.ial Fan Scrub [~ Rccommcndcd Deletion From Project
N
FIGURE 2. WETLAND DELINEATION --
FAIVRE STREET (WEST) SITE ~- -- 94'
~]~. ~ PSBS #863
Wetland
N
FIGURE 3. WEI'LAND DELINEATION --
MACE STREET SITE r ~ uo
84 EAST J STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EDUCATION
DR JOSEPH D CUMMINGS
OPAL FULLER
SHARON GILES
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANKA. TARANTINO September 13, 1989 SEP 18 1983
SUPERIHTENDENT
ROBERT J. bicCA RTHY
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No. IS-90-BH
Applicant: H. G. Fenton Material Company
Location: Southwest corner of Beyer & Faivre St.
Dear Hr. Reid:
Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are
overcrowded and the District has added 19 relocatable
classrooms over the past two years. Six more were installed
this fall at schools in the western portion of the District
to assist in meeting growth demands.
Please be advised that this project is in the Harborside
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
RECEIVF )
ROUTING FORH
SEP 08
DATE:
September 8, 1989 DEPT. D~ :: ~i~ Aau IidUSING]
CITY OF .h._~ viSTA CALIFORNIA'
, .' Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
-~O"F~: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: E~Application for Initial Study (IS- 90-8M /FA-__438/DP 692 )
E]Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB-__/DP )
[--]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/DP )
[~]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use PErmit for temporary use of approximately 1.3
acres including vehicle parking, storage and equipment storage. Proposal to
include office trailer. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
Southwest corner Beyer and Faivre Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date P.erson I. Time
E~ 4 /R~v. 7189)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
cPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
OMMISSION 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. H.G. Fenton Material Company
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
H.G. Fenton Material Company
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.
E.F. Hunte
Western Salt Company
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No xx If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership,_joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or comb~ation acting as a unit."
{NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~ ~/// /~/~ ~xy/y~
ISignature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P Brun~ ¥~arren
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
MONTGOMERY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Prepared For:
City of Chula Vista
and
Fenton-Western Properties
Prepared By:
:IHK & Associates
~t989 Rio San Diego Drive
San Diego, California 9210g
June 11, 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 2-1
Existing Conditions 2-1
Analysis of Existing Conditions 2-1
Future Conditions 2-6
Trip Generation 2-6
Trip Distribution and Assignment 2-7
Analysis of Future Conditions 2- I 1
3. CONCLUSIONS 3-1
APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX B - ICU CALCULATIONS FOR
EXISTING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX C - ICU CALCULATIONS FOR
FUTURE CONDITIONS
APPENDIX D - CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN - TRAFFIC ELEMENT
FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Vicinity Map 1-2
2 Site No. I 1-3
3 Site No. 2 i-#
4 Site No. 3 1-5
5 Existing Lane Configuration 1-6
6 Existing Year 1990 Daily Traffic Volumes 1-8
7 Turning Movement Volumes Existing Year 1990 Conditions -
AM Peak Hour 2-2
8 Turning Movement Volumes Year 1990 Conditions -
PM Peak Hour 2-3
9 Existing Turning Movement Volumes With Truck
Adjustment Factor Year 1990 Conditions -
AM Peak Hour 2-4
10 Existing Turning Movement Volumes With Truck
Adjustment Factor Year 1990 Conditions -
PM Peak Hour 2-5
11 Existing Plus Project Traffic Without Truck
Adjustment Factor - AM Peak Hour 2-9
12 Existing Plus Project Traffic Without Truck
Adjustment Factor - PM Peak Hour 2-10
13 Existing Plus Project Traffic With Truck
Adjustment Factor - AM Peak Hour 2-12
14 Existing Plus Project Traffic With Truck
Adjustment Factor - PM Peak Hour 2-13
TABLES
Table Page
I Trip Generation 2-8
2 Projected Levels of Service 3-12
1. INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes the traffic impacts of the proposed development by
Fenton-~Vestern Properties of truck trailer storage facilities at three sites located
in the Montgomery Planning area. One site is on Mace Street near the intersection
of Main Street and Hilltop Drive. The other two sites are on Faivre Street near the
intersection of Main Street and Broadway. All three locations are currently zoned
for industrial uses. A vicinity map showing the relative location of each site within
the Main Street Corridor is provided on Figure I. Additionally, Figures 2, 3 and 4
depict the proposed site plans for each of the three sites individually.
The site on Mace Street is located to the south of Main Street and to the west
of Hilltop Drive. The useable area at this site is approximately 1.4 acres with 35
spaces proposed for 40 toot trailers. Access to Main Street will be from Mace
Street.
The second site is on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Faivre
Street at Jacqua Street. This location is south of Main Street and between
Broadway and Holister Street. The useable area at this site is approximately 3.0
acres with 94 spaces for 40-foot trailers and 147 spaces for 20-foot trailers. All
truck traffic must access this site via Broadway to Faivre Street.
The third site ls also on Faivre Street between 27th Street and Broadway. This
site has two proposed uses, one is the truck trailer storage facility and the second is
a used car and truck sales area. The storage facility will occupy approximately 1.6
acres with 42 spaces for 40-foot trailers~ 21 spaces for 20-foot trailers, and 45 car
spaces. The used car sales area will be on approximately 0.9 acres of land. All
truck traffic must access Broadway via Faivre Street.
Four key intersections were examined for potential negative impacts from the
proposed development. The four intersections are Main Street at Broadway, Main
Street at Hermosa Avenue, Main Street at 3rd Avenue~ and Main Street at Hilltop
Drive. These intersections have standard four-leg approaches except for Main
Street at Hilltop Drive which has three approach legs. Hilltop Drive has just one
approach from the north at this intersection. Figure 5 shows existing lane
configurations at the four study intersections.
1-1
SITE ,2
SITE $
EIROADWAY
HERMOSA AV~
~RD AVE.
SITE
MACE ST. I
HILLTOP DR.
1-805
Figure l
VICINITY MAP
,
?,
He~no$~ A ye.
Hilltop Dr.
1-80S
Figure 5
EX1STING LANE CONFIGURATION
jhk ,, ~
jhk
It is important to note that the minor (unsigna. lized) intersections of Main
Street/Mace Street and Beyer Boulevard/Faivre Street were not analyzed in a
detailed manner in this report in order to concentrate on traffic operations along
Main Street between Interstate 3 and Inters_tale 103. However, the City of Chula
Vista Traffic Engineering Department did conduct 2O-hour traffic volume counts on
these minor streets (Mace Street and Faivre Street) on May 2t~, 1990 (see Appendix
A for Traffic Count Worksheets). The approximate location for these counts is
shown schematically on Figure 6. This figure also documents existing traffic volume
levels within the study area. The volumes observed on the two minor streets (2,630
vehicles per day on Mace Street and 2,179 vehicles per day on Faivre Street) are
considered typical for minor collector facilities and these volume levels represent
operations at approximately 30 percent of capacity.
i-7
2, i7 1 ,-: I_.
SITE $ ~ o 16 700 BROADWAY 12s700
6~100 g~gO0
HERMOSA AVE_
12~100 1!),300
3RD AVE.
SITE I~ ~
2~630 ~
HILLTOP
1-805
Approximate location for 2~-hour tube counts performed by the City of Chula Vista
on May 2~ i990 (See Appendix A for Traffic Count Worksheets).
Figure 6
EXISTING YEAR 1990
DALLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
City of Chuia Vista Traffic Flow l~90 Report hk & ,,.0.=
2. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This report presents two approaches to the analysis of potential impacts from
the development of these three sites. The first treats all vehicles in a similar
manner while the se~c;~]'-a~br~ach ~"~'~-adjus~:ment factor to account for the
impact of the existing truck activity on traffic flow along Main Street. The Chula
Vista Planning staff requested an analysis of a "worst case" scenario for this study.
They provided the assumption that 13 percent of traffic on Main Street consists of
large trucks~ i.e., three or more axles. For purposes o£ analysis, one truck was
counted as two vehicles to provide an equivalent number of automobiles. In addition
to the through traffic on Main Street being factored in this manner, vehicles turning
onto or off of Main Street from both approaches of Broadway and the south
approach of Hermosa were also factored. The use of a 2 to i ratio for trucks to
automobiles is based on research conducted and discussion contained in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual and represents the longer length of the trucks and their
longer acceleration time in traveling through an intersection.
Traffic counts were obtained from the Chula Vista Growth Management Plan
which contains counts for these four intersections from 1989. These counts were
factored by a four percent growth rate on all approaches for each intersection to
approximate 1990 conditions. Turning movement volumes with the growth rate
factors are shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the A.M. peak hour and the P.M. peak hour,
respectively. The same counts with the addition of the adjustment factor for truck
traffic are presented in Figures 9 and 10.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for both sets of
existing turning movement volume data (i.e., Year 1990 conditions with and without
an adjustment for truck factors), at the four study intersections for A.M. and P.M.
peak hour conditions. The intersection of Main Street at Broadway during the P.M.
peak hour was the only intersection for which the level of service (LOS) exceeded
"C" for either the existing conditions or the recalculated existing conditions. The
LOS for this intersection under existing P.M. peak hour conditions has a volume to
capacity
2-1
.~-.- 144
~ 77
Hermosa Ave.
172
.~---.---142
7~
3rd Ave.
277
146
H~lmp Dr.
1-805
Figure 7
TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
EXISTING YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS - AM PEAK HOUR
· So~ce: Ch~l~ Vista Growth Management Plan Tr~f. ic Monoriting program Yesr
1~90 adiusted by ~% to retlec~ year 1990 conditions.
508
213
274
251
~ 163 ~Ave.
134
HIltto~ Dr.
1-805
Figure 8
TURNING MOYEMENT ¥OLUMES
YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS - PM PEAK HOUR
· ~x~tces Chula Vista Growfll ~aana~eme~t Plan Traffic Moooriting Program year
1990 ad}usted by ~% to reflect year 1~90 conditions.
2-3
I-5
144
100
Broadway
· 1-805
Figure 9
EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES WITH TRUCK AD3USTMENT FACTOR
YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS - AM PEAK HOUR
1-805
Figure 10
EXISITNG TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES '~ITH TRUCK AD3USTMENT FACTOR
YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS - PM PEAK HOUR
ihk ~ .,.o~
(V/C) ratio'of 0.82 and an LOS of "D" while under the recalculated existing peak
hour conditions it has a V/C ratio of 0.91 and LOS of D. The worksheets for the ICU
calculations using both methods are in Appendix B.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
The proposed project is expected to be completed in about six months if City
approvals are obtained. Background conditions or additional traffic contribution
from other development proiects in the study area were not considered due to the
short build-out time frame.
TRIP GENERATION
Several source documents were investigated to calculate the number of trips
to be generated by each of the three sites. SANDAG's "Traffic Generation Rates
for the San Diego Region", September 1989 was the source for rates, percentages
during the peak hours, and percentages for inbound versus outbound traffic, though
ITE's Trip Generation, 4th Edition, was also examined. The proposed use of truck
trailer and container storage is not contained in either SANDAG's or ITE's reference
sources. The industrial category of warehousing was used for this report though
storage was also considered. ITE's Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, defines a
warehouse as a facility that is primarily devoted to the storage of materials that
may also include office and maintenance areas (p. 189). The proposed use could be
considered to be between warehousing and storage in terms of trips generated.
SANDAG's category of automobile sales (dealer & repair) was used for the proposed
used car and truck sales area which is planned as part of Site 3.
The applicant's estimate of daily auto trips to be generated by the proiect was
used for Site 2 because it was higher than the number of trips from SANDAG's rates.
The applicant's estimate for Sites I and 3 was lower than the number of trips using
SANDAG rates for industrial warehousing and automotive sales, thus SANDAG rates
were used for Sites I and 3. The trip rates for warehousing and automobile sales
provide conservative rates for the proposed uses at Sites I and 3.
Two methods were used to calculate the number of generated trips for the
truck trailer storage facilities for all three sites. One method accounts for all
vehicles equally while the other includes a factoring for truck trips to and from the
2-6
site during peak hours. The second method assumes that 50 percent of the trips are
by large trucks. This number is then multiplied by two for purposes of intersection
capacity analysis. This procedure, in effect, represents an increase in traffic
activity of approximately 33 percent when compared to original number of trips
estimated to and from the site. This factor was not applied to the car sales area on
Site 3. The results of both methods for the three sites are shown in Table 1.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
All trafiic from the truck trailer storage facility was assigned to Main Street
to access either I-5 or I-g03. Thus, it is assumed that other major streets adjacent
to Main Street (i.e., Palm and Orange Avenue) will not be significantly impacted by
these proposed projects. All outbound traffic from Site 2~ for example, uses Faivre
Street to Broadway, then travels northbound to Main Street. This traffic then turns
either left or right from the south approach at the intersection of Broadway at Main
Street. This assumption is based on the premise that the traffic to these facilities
uses either Interstate 3 or Interstate $05 to travel to or from the sites.
Fifty percent of the traffic from Site [ is assumed to be destined to or from I-
3 and the remaining 50 percent travels to or from [-805. Eighty percent of the
traffic to or from the truck trailer storage facilities at Sites 2 and 3 uses l-3 with 20
percent using [-803. Truck access to Sites 2 and 3 from Main Street must use
Broadway to Faivre Street though automobile traffic can use 3acqua Street and 27th
Street. Twenty-five percent of eastbound traffic on Main Street that is destined to
the two truck trailer storage sites on Faivre Street was assumed to turn right before
Broadway. All traffic leaving these two sites was assumed to use Broadway.
l~ighty percent of the traffic to or from the used car sales area was assumed
to use the intersection of Broadway at Main Street while the remaining twenty
percent is from the south, i.e., to or from South San Diego. The trip distribution for
the used car sales area at the intersection of Broadway at Main Street was assumed
to reflect the current distribution at this intersection.
The future projected turning movement volumes without any factoring for
current or projected truck traffic at the four key intersections for the A.M. peak
hour and the P.M. peak hour are shown in Figure ].! and Figure [2, respectively. The
2-7
~ 148
77
162104 ~'
278 ~
H~rmo~ Aw.
~72
4
~142
73 3rd Ave.
277 v
131 ~' ~,, u~ o~
146
Hilltop Dr.
1-805
Figure t t
EXISTING PLUS PRO3ECT TRAFFIC ~'ITHOUT
TRUCK AD3USTMENT FACTOR - AM PEAK HOUR
I-5
m~ ~ 95
~ 213
Breac:tway
251
~ 163
3~ Ave.
112 ~ . ~ ~
1-805
Figure 12
EXISTING PLUS PRO3ECT TRAFFIC II/ITHOUT
TRUCK AD3USTNIENT FACTOR - PM PEAK HoUR
Ilk & .~,~-,
projected turning volumes with truck adjustment factors for current and projected
traffic is shown in Figure 13 and Figure t# for the A.M. peak hour and the P.M. peak
hour, respectively.
TRIP ACTIVITY
As requested by the City of Chula Vista (Memorandum from Barbara Reid
dated March 23, 1990) JHK investigated the amount of truck activity that is
anticipated at each site during peak and off-peak periods. Typically truck access
activity is forecasted to occur at each of the three sites according to the following
information:
Typical Access Pattern
Proposed Temporary Truck Storage Facilities
Peak Period Forecasted Truck Activity
A.M. Peak 20%
P.M. Peak 20%
Off-Peak 60%
This forecasted activity is in agreement with the trip generation and
distribution figures recommended by 5ANDAG and used in this study.
ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS
ICU analysis was performed for both the projected turning movement volumes
without the factoring for truck traffic and the volumes with the truck factoring
applied. Once again, the only intersection that exceeds a level of service of "C" is
Main Street at Broadway during the P.M. peak hour. As shown in Table 2, the V/C
ratio at this intersection for the P.M. peak hour increases by 0.0% or less than a five
percent rise, when factors for truck traffic are not applied. The V/C ratio increases
by 0.06 (from 0.91 to 0.97), a six percent rise, with the application of factors for
truck traffic. Note that under both future scenarios (without and with truck
adjustment factors) the intersection level of service does not change. This indicates
that the cumulative impact of the trips generated by these developments is not
significant and no geometric modifications to the most critical intersection of Main
Street and Broadway are warranted. The ICU worksheets for both analysis scenarios
under future conditions are included in Appendix C.
2-il
~mu~ ~ 33
~ I00
~ 142
73
3t~ Ave.
Figure 13
EXISTING PLUS PRO3ECT TRAFFIC ~/ITH
TRUCK AD3USTMENT FACTOR - AM PEAK HOUR
jhk ,, ~
2-[2
~ ~60
112
134
H##op Dr.
1-805
Figure
EXISTING PLUS PRO3ECT TRAFFIC ~/ITH
TRUCK AD3USTMENT FACTOR - PM PEAK HOUR
2-L3
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed development of these three sites is a low intensity use in terms
of trips generated, and the three sites will not have a significantly adverse impact
on traffic. The only intersection that merits attention from a traffic impact
standpoint of the four analyzed is Main Street at Broadway during the P.M. peak
hour. The six percent reduction in LOS (with truck factors applied) caused by the
cumulative development of all three proposed truck storage facilities at this
intersection during the P.M. is relatively minor. It is important to recognize that
the traffic analysis conducted by JHK was based on the cumulative impact of all
three sites in full operation. Due to the small amount of traffic generated by each
individual site, it would not be feasible to determine the impacts associated with an
isolated location.
It is recommended that the City of Chula Vista review the pavement striping
and the roadway geometrics at the intersection of Faivre Street and Beyer
Boulevard (Broadway) because the majority of the traffic generated by the proposed
development is from Sites 2 and 3 which has access via Faivre Street. A review of
existing lane configurations at the intersection of Mace Street and Main Street
should also be conducted to determine if a minor amount of restriping at these
locations may be appropriate to allow for efficient truck operations. However, from
an intersection capacity standpoint~ the impact of the trip generation from these
developments will not be significant.
This document contains a presentation of the "worst case" scenario~ which
includes a factoring of assumed truck traffic. Additionally~ the use of the trip
generation rate for warehousing rather than storage provides for a conservative
estimate of number of trips to be generated by the proposed use. The use of these
two conservative techniques in the traffic analysis has resulted in a detailed review
of Main Street traffic operations before and after the implementation of these
projects. It is important to recognize that a high level of traffic activity currently
exists at the critical intersection of Main Street and Broadway. While the
3-i
TABLE 2
Projected Levels of Service
Existing With Existing Plus Existing Plus Project
Intersection Existing Year i990 Truck Factor Project With Truck Factor
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Broadway Main Street
~M Peak Hour 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.49 A 0.58 A
3M Peak Hour 0.82 D 0.91 E 0.86 D 0.97 E
Hermosa St dain Street
~,M Peak Hour 0.45 A 0.51 A 0.46 A 0.52 A
PM Peak Hour 0.65 B 0.74 C 0.66 B 0.75 C
3rd Avenue Main Street
AM Peak Houl 0.53 A 0.57 A 0.53 A 0.58 A
3M Peak Houl 0.72 C 0.78 C 0.72 C 0.79 C
Hilltop Dr Main Street
~,M Peak Hou~ 0.53 A 0.59 A 0.53 A 0.60 B
=M Peak Hou~ 0.54 A 0.60 B 0.54 A 0.61 B
Notes: "Existing" uses turning movement volumes from 1989 factored by a #%
growth rate to accurately reflect year 1990 conditions.
"Existing With Truck Factor" includes the ~% growth rate and an
adjustment factor to account for the assumption that 1~% of current
traffic on Main Street consists of trucks.
"Existin§ Plus Proiect" includes the &% growth rate and traffic generated
from the proposed project.
"Existing Plus Project ~fith Truck Factor" includes the q% growth rate,
factors for current truck traffic, and traffic from the proposed project
with factors for trucks.
combination of traffic generated by the three truck, storage facilities does not
significantly impact levels of service at this location nor any other study area
intersection~ it is recommended that future operations at those intersections be
monitored by the City in the future to ensure that they continue to operate in
conformance with the Adopted Growth Management Plan Threshold Standards. A
copy of the traffic element of the plan is included in Appendix D for reference
purposes.
3-3
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS
(May 2t~, 1990)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Segment From T~o
Mace Street Britton Street Main Street
Faivre Street ~lacqua Street 27th Street
(905)
(850)
MACE STREET
Britton St - Main St
N/o Britton St
SB
APPENDIX B
ICU CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX C
ICU CALCULATIONS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS
APPENDIX D
CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRAFFIC ELEMENT
,GOAL:
response to pl~ned growth, maint~ning acceptable levels o~ servi~ (L~).
THR~HOLD STANDARD:
worsen.(p)
average w~k~y peak
Source: City of Chuia Vista Crowth ,\4anagement Plan Exhibit "A" TraJJic Element
November 17~ i9~7.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-2M; request for a
conditional use permit for truck and trailer storage
on the south side of Faivre Street at Jacqua Street
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, H. G. Fenton Company, is proposing the use of 3.0 acres of
land located at the south side of Faivre Street at the terminus of Jacqua
Street for temporary open industrial land uses. The proposed uses
include: parking and storage of truck trailers. All proposed uses will
be situated on the site in a neat and orderly fashion with circulation
provided. The applicant also proposes to locate an office trailer on the
site with sanitary facilities for use by truck drivers.
A somewhat similar proposal had gone before the Montgomery Planning
Committee {MPC) from H. G. Fenton almost a year ago. At that time, the
applicant had proposed a Master Conditional Use Permit for the MPC's
approval basically for storage purposes. Specific uses were to be worked
out at the Zoning Administrator level.
The members of the Committee voiced their concern over the granting of a
Master Conditional Use Permit. The MPC preferred that the conditional
use permit be for a specific use. They also requested additional
information on traffic be included in the Negative Declaration and asked
for corrections to the Initial Study.
As a result, the Fenton staff modified their proposal, to one for a
specific use, truck storage and trailer, and met with a subcommittee of
the MPC and staff at the time of their submittal in order to obtain
additional input as to the specific conditions MPC would require be
included. These are starred in Section 2B. Recommendation. The City
required the applicant to undertake a traffic studj~ to answer concerns
raised by the MPC {please see the June 12, 1990 memo from Hal Rosenberg,
City Traffic Engineer to Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner on Additional
Traffic Information Pertaining to the Proposed Traffic Storage Facility
to be Located in the Mont~omer~ Area/Application by Fenton Western
Properties and Final Technical Report Montgomery Ana)ysis prepared by the
City by JHK and Associates dated June 11, 1990 (attached).
Staff also made the necessary changes to the Initial Study and prepared
an addendum to the Negative Declaration which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project.
An Initial Study, IS-90-9M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
December 29, 1989. An addendum, as discussed earlier was also
prepared. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 2
would be no significant environmental effects and is recommending that a
Negative Declaration be adopted. At the MPC meeting on July 11, 1990,
the MPC unanimously voted to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-90-9M and based on the findings contained in Section E of this report,
unanimously voted to adopt PCC-90-2M for a conditional use permit for
temporary truck trailer storage at the south side of Faivre Street at
Jacqua Street subject to the conditions that follow.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-9M.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-90-2M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for a temporary truck trailer storage at the south side of
Faivre Street at Jacqua Street subject to the following conditions:
a. The use permit is granted for a period of two years from the
time of approval by City Council and may be extended in one
year increments, with a maximum tenure of five years, upon
written request and review prior to expiration of the permit.
*b. No hazardous or combustible materials are to be stored on the
site. No materials that require placarding by DOT (Department
of Transportation), either Federal or State will be allowed.
*c. The manifest of all materials stored is to be made available to
the City of Chula Vista Planning Department and their designate
from the Montgomery Planning Committee within 24 hours notice.
d. Per environmental documents, that the applicant shall provide a
6 ft. fence to fence of the storage area as shown on the site
plan and also install a silt fence on the southern border of
the storage area (at the bottom of the chain link fence) within
30 days of the granting of the CUP. Slats are to be provided
along Faivre to provide a buffer from the residential units
across the street.
e. The fire access road of decomposed granite provided by the
applicant shall be able to handle the weight of fire
apparatus. A knox box for the locked gates shall be provided
by the applicant.
f. Office trailer must be a State approved commercial coach with
sanitation facilities.
g. Applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting
programs when a specific project is proposed.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 3
h. Street dedication is required to provide the ultimate
half-width of 36 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the site on
Faivre.
i. Failure to comply with conditions of approval or complaints
filed shall constitute grounds for review and possible
revocation of the use permit.
j. A building permit is required.
* k. No maintenance/repair of trucks is allowed on the site.
* 1. The entrance to the site shall be to the east of Jacqua Street
terminus in order to discourage access from Jacqua Street. Two
signs shall be posted by the applicant on their property on their
fence at the terminus of Jacqua: l) right turn only; 2) Trucks are
prohibited on Jacqua.
* m. That a 10 foot setback be required for the fence on the north
of the property in order to provide an area for school children
who are waiting for the bus.
* n. A monitoring program for the CUP be developed by staff and
checked once every 3 months. Any problems should be brought to
the attention of the Montgomery Planning Committee.
Conditions b and c and k thru n were added by the MPC Subcommittee or
Montgomery Planning Committee.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North M-54 Residential, industrial warehousing, car sales
South M-52 Otay River
East M-54 Vehicle impound yard
West M-54 Truck and trailer storage
Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is a 3.0 acre vacant parcel of land located south of
Faivre Street at Jacqua Street and is located within the Otay River
lO0-year floodplain. The northern portion of the site is flat and clear
of brush. The southern portion of the site slopes to the Otay River and
is located within the floodway. The site is also located within the
California Coastal Zone.
Proposed Use
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
temporary use of the 3.0 acre existing flat and clear areas of the site.
Uses proposed for the site include are truck parking and storage. The
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 4
plan provides space to accommodate 147 20-foot truck trailers and 94
40-foot truck trailers. The proposed use also includes an office trailer
located on the northeast corner of the site which includes sanitary
facilities for the truck drivers. Access to the site is on the northern
border along'Faivre Street.
No permanent improvements or structures are proposed, no grading is
proposed other than finish grading for the project.
Various items which will be transported by the company using the site
will be stored in the containers. The items may be transported overseas
or transported between Long Beach and San Diego County, or throughout the
United States. Examples of some of the materials that were listed on the
manifest of one company which is interested in leasing space included:
women's clothing, seashells, electronic component parts, household goods
(for people moving from overseas), safes, furniture, gloves, bicycles,
motorcycle parts and exercise clothing. One month is usually the longest
time that any materials are stored. Proposed hours of operation are from
6:00 a.m. to lO:O0 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Sunday. The manifest of items stored will be available to the
Planning Department and members of the Montgomery Planning Committee on a
prearranged confidential basis. A provision of the lease with any leasee
will strictly and specifically prohibit any use or storage of toxic or
hazardous materials on this site.
No removal of brush or grading would take place, other than to remove
existing trash and debris to put a finish grade on the lot.
The proposed uses will be confined to the existing flat and clear areas
located on the northern half of the site well north of the river floodway
and no permanent structures or improvements are proposed.
D. ANALYSIS
The project site is designated "Whitelands" on the Montgomery Specific
Plan and is slated for "special comprehensive study". The plan also
suggests that this parcel of land be incorporated within the proposed
"Otay River Regional Park and Open Space Preserve." The site is under
City adopted County zoning M-54 General Impact Industrial, which allows
the proposed uses.
Because the site is located within the Whitelands Study Area and is being
looked at by a number of jurisdictions for use as a Regional Park/Open
Space Preserve, the Planning Department has concluded that it will be a
number of years before a specific land use designation for this area is
determined.
During this "interim" period until the comprehensive study is completed
and the specific land use designation is determined, the landowner should
be allowed viable economical use of their land on a temporary basis.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 5
Approving this permit for a limited period of time {two years, with a
maximum tenure of five years), the use would be consistent with the
intent of the plan and would protect the publics future interest in the
"Whitelands".
In response to the environmental sensitivity of the area on the southern
portion of the site, the applicant agreed to shrink the size of the
storage area to avoid the sensitive wetland that exists on the site. The
applicant is also proposing to install a silt fence on the southern
border of the property, and will also be installing a fence around the
area that is proposed for use to help discourage illegal dumping, that is
prevalent in this area.
E. FINDINGS
1. The proposed storage area would provide for the storage of various
items of material and equipment that are useful to the continued
operation of businesses wlthin the community.
2. The proposed storage area will present a neat, well ordered
appearance and will be separated from nearby residents by Faivre
Street and will not result in impacts which would adversely affect
humans or surrounding properties.
3. The proposed storage area will comply with the applicable
conditions, codes and regulations for the Montgomery area.
4. The site is located in the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit allowing'
this use for a temporary period, and the Planning Department s
ability to phase out this use if open space is determined to be the
best for the area, this project will be consistent with the
applicable plans and policies.
WPC 7995P
!
~! MAIN ST.
v,/~. r~-~=~.~ ~TO~
5F
To~ I~ Y~D
FAIVRE ST.
PROJECT
i LOCATI(
I /CITY'OF CHULA VISTA
I ~' CITY OF SAN DIEGO'
..~ THE ENTIRE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE OTAY RIVER 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
~ AT JACQUA ST
4B. PUBLIC HEARING PCC-90-2M - Request for a conditional
use permit for truck trailer storage on
the south side of Faivre Street at
Jacqua Street
Assistant Planner Reid indicated the following changes to be made
to the staff report:
Title, Line 2: should read "conditional use permit for truck'
trailer storage" instead of" vehicle and trailer storage"
Paragraph 1, line 3: should read "parking of truck trailers"
instead of "vehicle parking".
Page 2, "i", line 3: should read ""Faivre" instead of "Faivre ~
and 27th".
Page 3, Proposed Use, line 3: should read "include truck trailer
parking and storage" instead of "are vehicle parking and
storage". Balance of paragraph should be omitted.
Attachment to Application, Title, second line: should read
"Faivre and Jacqua Street" instead of "Broadway and Faivre".
Addendum to Findings regarding adequacy of Neg Decl IS-90-9M,
page 2, Traffic, end of line 3: should read "dedication of 36
ft. right-of-way adjacent to Faivre Street" instead of
"dedication of 20 ft. right-of-way on Broadway and complete full
street improvements on Broadway and Faivre Streets.
Next paragraph should be omitted.
City Data Sheet, page 8: designation on the site is "open space
and Whitelands special study"
Discussion included the use by commercial vehicles of Jacqua
Street even though the area is posted as residential. Temporary
law enforcement was requested. It was suggested by Committee
Member Castro that the road at the present terminus of Jacqua be
eliminated so it would not align with Jacqua Street and the
access road be brought up to the north near the cul-de-sac. The
driver would have to make a conscious decision to turn either
left or right. If the street were posted "right turn only", then
they would not come through Jacqua.
(Verbatim transcript: "At the present terminus of Jacqua, now,
if that were to be eliminated altogether so that you would not
align with Jacqua Street, and if you look down to the right side
where the little cul-de-sac is there and make the access road
through there up north to where that little red spot is, when
they come out they would have to make a conscious decision to
turn either left or right. Then, if it was posted "right turn
only", that would eliminate at least part of the desire to come
through Jacqua." Committee Member Palmer stated that "that
would mean the entrance was adjacent to the little red
building".)
Further discussion included posting signs prohibiting the use of
Jacqua by trucks and it was suggested that such a sign be placed
inside the gate. The applicant indicated the suggestions were
agreeable to them.
Conditions Modified:
b. (Hazardous materials - are these the same as in PCC-90-1M?
They are not mentioned during consideration of this item.
rms)
d. Per environmental documents, that the applicant shall
provide fencing of the storage area as shown on the site
plan and also install a silt fence on the southern border of
the storage area within 30 days of the granting of the CUP.
Construction of the silt fence to be modified as outlined in
PCC-90-1M.
In her presentation, Ms. Barth said it was needful to
place slats in the chainlink fence along Faivre Street
to buffer this from the residential units across the
street.
h. No mechanical work on trucks is allowed on the site.
In her presentation, Ms. Barth said this was a
duplicate condition prohibiting repairs and maintenance
on the trucks.
i. Street dedication is required to provide the ultimate half-
width of 36 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the site on
Faivre Street.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public
hearing was opened.
Linda Barth, representing H.G. Fenton, stated that many of the
conditions were duplicated, and that all trailers will be
installed on the site as opposed to last time when some vehicle
storage was involved.
Committee Member Creveling noted that the Fire Department had
made no recommendations on fire supply.
In response to a question about the disposition of the cab after
the trailer is parked in the storage yard, Mr. Watton said that
the cab usually had another trailer to pick up since no money was
made with the cab sitting idle. The parking of trailer trucks on
City streets could be often be ascribed to lack of storage yards.
Chairman Lee referenced the Addendum to the Findings re Adequacy
of Negative Declaration IS-90-9M, page 2, item 3, Water, wherein
it is stated that "A representative of the Sweetwater Authority
started that the water shortage is seen as a temporary one and as
a result does not require action that stops building." Ms. Reid
explained that the City was considered to be in a Stage 2 water
shortage which is a very unusual precedent in history. The water
conservation is now voluntary, however, if it does continue into
a 5th year, it will be necessary to cancel hook-ups.
MS (McFarlin/Roberts) to find the project will have no signifi-
cant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-90-9M.
The motion was amended by Palmer and seconded by Roberts to
include all the corrections provided by staff. The motion was
accepted by Committee Members McFarlin and Roberts.
AMENDED MOTION RESTATED
MSUC to find that the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-90-9M with inclusion of the corrections provided by staff.
[(McFarlin/Roberts) 7-0.]
Committee Member Palmer commented that all the corrections were a
little different in,version. She asked that the conditions be as
similar as possible in wording and order.
Committee Member Creveling asked if the fire flow density could
also be included.
Chairman Wheeland recognized the arrival of some members of the
public during the presentation and asked if they had anything
they wished to communicate to the Committee. On being informed
that they did, ~h~ ~opened.the public hearing.
George E. Sozis, 151 Jacqua Street, CV, spoke against the use of
Jacqua Street by the commercial vehicles and of the lack of a 10-
foot setback for the fence which forces children to stand out in
the street to catch the school bus. He was informed of the
action proposed by the Committee in a realignment of the access
road and posting of signs to protect Jacqua Street from trucks
and that the setback would be required.
The public hearing was reclosed.
MSUC that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the
report, to approve the request, PCC-90-2M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for a temporary vehicle parking and storage at the south
side of Faivre Street at Jacqua Street subject to the conditions
contained in the staff report and with the modifications
discussed. [(Castro/Palmer), 7-0.]
April 9, 1990
File # ZB-194(A)
TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner
VIA: Clifford L. Swanso~Deputy Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/
FROM: William A Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer~/~/~
Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer ~/
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Vehicle Parking and
Storage at the West End of Faivre Street
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal and
recommends approval subject to the following condition:
1. Street dedication to provide ultimate half-width of 36 feet
of right of way adjacent to the site along Faivre Street.
The following items will be required in conjunction with building
permits under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, if
building valuation exceeds $10,000 or whatever limit is in effect
at the time the permit is issued:
1. Street widening on Faivre Street to provide 26 feet from
Centerline to edge of pavement. Public improvements may
include, but not be limited to:
A. Asphalt concrete dike
B. Asphalt concrete paving
C. Street lights(s)
2. A construction permit will be required for any work
performed in the street right of way.
3. Submittal of improvement plans
4. A grading permit if the exemptions in the grading ordinance
are not met.
5. Sewer, traffic signal, and impact fees will be assessed when
the building permit is issued.
HSB:jg
(RJ~FORMS~CUP# 2. DOC)
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
~: _ Graphics . Landscape Architect
X Fire Marshal Env. Review Coordinator
_~~X~Building & Housing ~X Chula Vista School District
XAdvance Planning X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
/~ X_~Engineering/Land Development Div. -X Ken Lee (Notice only)
~ O~M.~ Barbara Reid -- ~ur-~ent Pl~nning)~ ~ Planning Department
.PCC~o-02 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
P- Precise Plan Use Permit (Modification)
ZAV- Variance Location West end of Faivre Street
PCZ- Zone Change
PCM- Miscellaneous Request Modification from the
PUD- Planned Unit Development previously applied for master conditional
PCA- Zoning Text ~endment
m~ permit to an application for vehicle"
GPA- General Plan ~endment and trailer storage; custodial and security
Other
fanilities.
Deposit Account Number DP ......
Montgomery Planning C~mmittee
~~m~i~Meeting Date April 18, 1990
Zoning Ad'ministrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by:. April 5, 1990
COMMENTS:
/.
REQUEST FOR COI,IMENTS
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
TO: _Graphics ~Landscape Architect
.-- X Fire Marshal Env. Review Coordinator
_ XBuilding & Housing iX Chula Vista School District
__ XAdvance Planning . X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
_ XEngineering/Land Development Div. X Ken Lee (Notice only)
FROM: Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
Planning Department
PCC~O-02 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
~- Precise Plan IIs~ permit (Modification)
ZAV- Variance Location West end of Faivre Street
PCZ- Zone Change
PCM- Miscellaneous Request Modification from the
~UD- Planned Unit Development previously applied for master conditional
PCA- Zoning Text Amendment
uqe oermit to an application for vehicle"
GPA- General Plan Amendment and trailer storage; custodial and security
Other
facilities.
Deposit Account Number DP ......
Montgomery Planning C~mmittee
P~s~m~g=~-~4,~Meeting Date April 18, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by: April 5, 1990
COMMENTS:- ......... ----'"------'-"---'------'---'-'-"------''"--'-"---"------------------
RECEIVED
REQUEST FOR COMHENTS MAR g 3 1990
Chula Vista Planning Department
DEPT, OF BUILDING AND HOUSINg:
DATE:, March 22, 1990 C!T¥ OF C~ULA
/,-'~ _ _Graphics Landscape Architect
X Fire Marshal
" .-- Env. Review Coordinator
t ' __XBuilding & Housing ~X Chula Vista School District
__ XAdvance Planning _X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
XEngineering/Land Development Div. X Ken Lee (Notice only)
Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
'~ : Planning Department
~CC~0-02 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
P- Precise Plan Use Permit (Modification)
ZAV- Variance Location West end of Faivre Street
PCZ- Zone Change
PCM- Miscellaneous Request Modification from the
PUD- Planned Unit Development prpviousl¥ applied for master conditional
P~A- Zoning Text Amendment usp permit to an application for vehicle"
GPA- General Plan Amendment and trailer storage; custodial and security
Other
facilities.
Deposit Account Number DP ......
Montgomery Planning Committee
PJ*~Ji~J=~,v,~-;,~Meeting Date April 18, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by: April 5, 1990
COHMENTS; .............................................................................
REQU£ST FOR CDNME?;TS
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
TO:
__ Graphics
X-Fire Marshal _ Landscape Architect
~ Env. Review Coordinator
_ XBuilding & Housing ~X Chula Vista School District
XAdvance Planning --
~ _X Swee:water Union H.S.District
__ XEngineering/Land Development Div. X Ken Lee (Notice only)
FROM: Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
Planning Department
~CC~0-02 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton Conditional
P- Precise Plan -
Use permit (Modification)
ZAV- Variance Locatio~ West end of Faivre Street
PCZ- Zone Change
PCM~ Miscellaneous Request Modification from the
P~UD- Planned Unit Development previously applied for master conditional
Zoning Text Amendment
~J~ permit to an application for vehicle"
General Plan Amendment and trailer storage; custodial and security
_ Other
facilities.
Deposit Account Number DP ......
Montgomery Planning C~mmittee
~m~=~Z~G~l~Meeting Date April 18, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date .............
Comments to be received by: April 5, 1990
.............................................................................
ADDENDUM TO FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-90-9M
A. BACKGROUND
THe Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide
that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant
project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for
significant environmental impacts which have not been previously
evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If
the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of
impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the
ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as
the environmental document for the project.
Previous Project
The project involved an application for a master conditional use permit
allowing the temporary use of existing flat and clear areas of a 3.0 acre
site on Faivre at Jacqua Street. Proposed uses included vehicle parking
and storage, equipment yard, temporary offices, custodial and security
facilities, or other related activities on a temporary basis.
Proposed Project
As a result of input from the Montgomery Planning Committee, the proposed
project includes a specific conditional use permit (as contrasted to a
Master Conditional Use Permit) allowing for the temporary use of existing
flat and clear areas located on the northern portion of the site for
vehicle and trailer storage. The site plan shows 94 spaces for 40-foot
trailers and 147 spaces for 20 foot trailers. Various items which will
be transported either for loading overseas or transportation between Long
Beach Harbor and San Diego County by the company leasing the area will be
stored in containers. Examples of some of the materials that were listed
on the manifest of one company which is interested in leasing space
included: women's clothing, seashells, electronic component parts,
household goods (for people moving from overseas), safes, teak furniture,
gloves, antique furniture, bicycles, motorcycle parts, exercise
clothing. (These items were listed when staff called a potential leaser
in March 1990.) One month is usually the longest time that any materials
are stored.
In order to minimize the possibility of any significant environmental
impacts, the following actions are required by the applicant within 30
days of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit: Installation of
chain link fencing with slats along the south side of Faivre Street and
along the eastern and western portions of the site where the proposed
land uses will be located, and location of a silt fence on the southern
border of the proposed storage area.
B. ANALYSIS
Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
Upon review of this new proposal, the Fire Department has asked that
the fire access road shall be able to handle the weight of fire
apparatus and that a knox box be provided for the locked gate.
2. Traffic
As part of the environmental review of the previous proposal, the
Engineering Department reviewed the application and requested that
the applicant, project meet the following conditions: dedication of
20 ft. right-of-way on Broadway and complete full street
improvements on Broadway and Faivre Streets. The Engineering
Department found that with or without these conditions, the proposed
project will not adversely affect the existing levels of service on
roads or intersections in the vicinity.
The response to a number of questions of the Montgomery Planning
Committee including: wanting verification that the ADT provided by
the Engineering Department of 12670 before the project and 12786
after the project are still current and correct, notification that
the LOS is still A, the addressment of access, and the hours trucks
will be accessing the site, the Planning Department requested that
the applicant pay for a traffic study to answer these questions. A
copy of that study is attached for your information and serves as
the addendum to the data sheet that was previously included in the
negative declaration.
A memo dated June 12, 1990 from Hal Rosenberg is attached which
specifically addresses the questions asked above and serves as part
of the Addendum. To summarize the findings of the Montgomery
Traffic Analysis, the LOS before and after the project meets the
City of Chula Vista's threshold standards and, therefore, no traffic
mitigation is required for this project.
3. Water
The negative declaration included the statement that the Sweetwater
Authority was notified and has not identified any constraints to
providing adequate water supply for the project.
Subsequent to that time the Montgomery Planning Committee asked
staff to obtain an explanation from the Sweetwater Authority as to
why conservation measures are being used, if there is adequate water
supply for new projects. A representative of the Sweetwater
Authority stated that the water shortage is seen as a temporary one
-2-
and as a result does not require action that stops building. If the
shortage continues then the Sweetwater Authority could stop issuing
water permits.
Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Illegal Dumping
There is some concern that the proposed development of this site might
improve the access to the Otay River Valley which may encourage
additional dumping of garbage in this sensitive area. As part of this
project, fencing should be required between the proposed storage area and
the sensitive area, to limit any illegal activity and protect this
environmentally sensitive area.
2. Wetlands
Due to concern of the possible existence of a wetland located on the
project site, a wetlands delineation study was conducted {PSBS*863).
From this report, it was determined that a wetland exists on the site to
the south of the proposed storage area and only intrudes onto the
proposed storage area on the southeastern corner. It is recommended that
this southeastern corner be avoided, by refinement of the project area to
protect this high quality riverene wetland.
3. Drainage
Although the drainage facilities have been determined to be adequate by
the City Engineering Department, there is some concern with the "free"
water runoff from the proposed storage areas into the Otay River valley
and it is recommended that a silt fence be installed along the southern
border of the storage area to help protect the environmentally sensitive
wetland to the south.
4. Coastal Zone
The western portion of the proposed storage area is located within the
California Coastal Zone and a coastal development permit from the
California Coastal Commission is required for any development within this
zone,
5. Schools
The Montgomery Planning Committee has in the past expressed particular
concern regarding the response of the School District to the notice of
~¥~( initial study information as to the policy of the School Districts. In
~,~,~,~i this case, the Chula Vista School District will charge 12¢ per square
~J~ foot (for the mobile trailer office) and the Sweetwater School District
\~' will not require impact fees.
-3-
C. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 1§164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the
above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the
proposed project will result only in minor technical changes or additions
which are necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA
and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning
Commission adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-90-TM prior to
taking action on the proposed project.
WPC 7925P
-4-
DATE: June 12, 1990
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
FROM: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Additional Traffic Information Pertaining to the Proposed Truck
Storage Facility to be located in the Montgomery Area/Application by
Fenton Western Properties.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions raised by the
Montgomery Planning Committee and documented in your memorandum to Linda
Bartholomew dated March 28, 1990. This memorandum is organized in the order
of the questions raised by the Montgomery Planning Committee followed by a
general statement responding to all the questions posed.
1. Mace Street Site
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project completion at Main
and Mace Street and at Hilltop and Main.
Response
Traffic volumes on Main Street in the vicinity of Mace Street and
Hilltop Drive are approximately 21,000 vehicles per day. This
volume based on the City's Level of Service standards represents a
Level of Service A for a four lane major street facility. Traffic
volumes on Mace Street in the vicinity of the project presently is
2,630 vehicles per day. This represents Level of Service value A
for a two-lane collector-type facility. Hilltop Drive north of Main
Street presently carries approximately 5,600 vehicles per day. This
value represents Level of Service B for a two-lane collector
facility. It is estimated that the Mace Street site will produce
approximately 168 trips per day assuming an equivalency of two trips
per truck. This volume added to the existing traffic counts is
considered negligible and does not alter the level of service
previously stated. Intersection traffic analysis at Hilltop and
)lain with project traffic resulted in no change in level of service
at this latter intersection.
ADT at peak hours at these intersections
Response
This question isn't totally clear since ADT and peak hour represent
different time periods. I presume that the question relates to the
peak hour performance of the two intersections. With regard to the
intersection of Main and Mace, the traffic generated by the project
during the peak period does not result in an unacceptable level of
service. At the signalized intersection of Hilltop and Main the
level of service remains at B during the peak period as noted on
Table 2,, page 3-2 of the consultant s report.
Barbara Reid -2- June 13, 1990
References ~method of determination or studies that have been used
to obtain the above information)
.Response
The main source document is the Final Technical Report Montgomery
Traffic Analysis prepared for the City by JHK & Associates dated
June ll, 1990; also data obtained from the City Traffic Engineering
office and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Addressment of access - engineering report showed access from Mace;
Main should be included as an access point.
~esponse
The traffic analysis performed by the consultant for the City of
Chula Vista included the intersection of Main and Mace Street as a
critical access point for the Mace Street site.
2. PCC 90-2M West End of Faivre
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project
Response
The average daily traffic volume on Faivre Street west of Beyer/
Broadway is 2,179 vehicles per day. The traffic volume on Beyer in
the vicinity of Faivre Street is 12,700 vehicles per day. The
traffic volume on Main Street in the vicinity of Broadway is
approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. All of these volumes
represent a Level of Service A. The Faivre site at the west end,
site 2, generates approximately 528 equivalent vehicle trips per
day. This volume when added to existing traffic count does not
impact daily levels of service.
Determine what hours most trucks will be accessing the site (i.e.,
50% before 7:00 a.m., 25% during peak hours, 25% after 6:00 p.m.)
Response
Based on information provided by the Fenton Western Properties, the
percent of truck activity occurring during the a.m. peak period is
estimated to be 20%, and during the p.m. peak period is also 20%,
and during the non-peak period approximately 60%.
Determine peak hour traffic
Barbara Reid -3- June 13, 1990
Response
A.M. and p.m. peak hour traffic produced by the site at the west end
of Faivre is shown on Table l, page 2-8, of the consultant's
report. The highest value shown occurred during the p.m. peak
period in the outbound direction and is 80 equivalent trips during
that period of time.
What other streets will be impacted by traffic? /Main Street,
Palm?, etc.)
Response
The traffic produced by the site at the west end of Faivre was
assumed to impact mostly Main Street for a test of the worst-case
condition. This is based primarily on the proximity of the site to
Main Street, a major east/west facility providing connections to I-5
and 1-805.
References/Sources
R.esponse
Same as third response noted in item 1.
3. PCC-90-IM Beyer & Faivre
Verify that figures provided of 12,670 ADT before the project and
12,786 after the project are still current and correct, Isince a
specific site plan has been submitted).
Response
According to City of Chula Vista's traffic flow count information,
the volume of traffic on Beyer/Broadway in the vicinity, of Faivre
is 12,670 vehicles per day rounded to the nearest lO vehicles. The
traffic generated by the two sites on ~aivre Street equal
approximately 800 trips per day. Thus an increase in traffic on
Beyer/Broadway of 800 vehicles per day would result in an average
daily traffic volume of approximately 13,470 vehicles per day; thus,
the previous estimate of 12,786 is modified slightly by the new
information provided by the consultant's report.
Verify that LOS is still A, as shown.
Response
According to the City's LOS standard, the adjusted volume of 13,470
represents an A LOS.
Barbara Reid -4- June 13, 1990
Access should be addressed. Is the main access Faivre, Broadway or
Main? Secondary Access?
Response
For the traffic study performed by the consultant, a worst-case
scenario was assumed in which 100% of the access for both sites on
Faivre Street would utilize Faivre Street exclusively. Secondary
access was not assumed, and it is recommended by the City Traffic
Engineer that access for these sites be restricted to Faivre Street
only.
Provide hours trucks will be accessing the site.
~gsponse
Same as second response in Item No. 2.
References/Sources
Response
Same as third response noted in item 1.
WPC 7933P
negativu declaration
PROJECT NAME: Faivre Street, west
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Faivre Street at Jacqua Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: H.G. Fenton Material Company
CASE NO: IS-90-9M DATE: December 29, 1989
A. Project Settin9
The project setting consists of approximately 3.0 acres of land located
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street and is located within the Otay River 100
year floodplain. The northern portion of the site is flat and clear. The
southern portion of the site slopes to the Otay River and is located
within the floodway. The western and southern half of the site are also
located within the California coastal zone.
Surrounding uses include industrial warehousing, car sales and single
family residences to the north, the Otay River to the south, a towing
impound yard and vehicle storage to the east, and truck and trailer
storage to the west.
B. Project Description
The proposed project involves a master conditional use permit allowing for
temporary use of existing flat and clear areas located on the northern
portion o~ the site. Such uses as proposed are vehicle parking and
storage, equipment yard, temporary offices, custodial and security
facilities, or other related activities on a temporary basis. Specific
uses, as they are proposed, are subject to review by the Zoning
Administrator.
No permanent improvements or structures or grading, other than finish
grading is proposed for this project.
In order to minimize the possibility of any significant environmental
impacts, the following actions are required by the applicant prior to the
approval of a specific use by the Zoning Administrator:
Installation of solid fencing of the entire site and installation of
a silt fence on the south side of the proposed storage area and
northerly of the wetlands {see Section E.1 and E.4 of this report and
the attached wetlands delineation study).
Refinement of the project to avoid a wetland located on the
southeastern corner of the proposed storage area (see Section E.2 of
this report and the attached wetlands delineation study).
city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF
environmental review section CHUJ.~ vJ~rA
-2-
C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans
The site is located within the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit allowing the
proposed use for a temporary period, the project will not affect long
range plans and policies. The site is under City-adopted County zoning
M-54, General Impact Industrial, which allows the proposed uses.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The distance to the nearest fire station is 1.7 miles and the Fire
Department estimated reaction time is is 7 minutes. Provided no
combustible materials are stored on the site, the fire department
will be able to provide adequate fire protection for this project
without an increase in equipment or personnel.
2. Police
The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of
service based on the threshold standards.
3. Traffic
The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and has
requested that the applicant, as part of the project, meet the
following conditions:' dedication of 16 ft. right-of-way along Faivre
Street and provide full street improvements. With or without these
conditions, the proposed project will not adversely affect the
existing levels of service on roads or intersections in the vicinity.
4. Park/Recreation
The Parks and Recreation department has determined that the proposed
project would not exceed adopted threshold standards.
5. Drainage
Drainage facilities are adequate to serve this project.
6. Sewer
Sewer lines adjacent to the site are adequate to serve the proposed
project.
7. Water
The Sweetwater Authority was notified and has not identified any
constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project.
-3-
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Illegal Dumping
There is some concern that the proposed development of this site
might improve the access to the Otay River Valley which may encourage
additional dumping of garbage in this sensitive area. As part of
this project, fencing should be required between the proposed storage
area and the sensitive area, to limit any illegal activity and
protect this environmentally sensitive area.
2. Wetlands
Due to concern of the possible existence of a wetland located on the
project site, a wetlands delineation study was conducted (PSBS
#863). From this report, it was determined that a wetland exists on
the site to the south of the proposed storage area and only intrudes
onto the proposed storage area on the southeastern corner. It is
recommended that this southeastern corner be avoided, by refinement
of the project area to protect this high quality riverene wetland.
3. Biolog.v
Of possible environmental significance was the sighting during the
wetlands delineation study of a California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila
California) in the alluvial fan scrub located on the site. Since
this bird would not be expected to utilize any portion of the
proposed storage area, this project would not have any adverse impact
on the species.
4. Drainage
Although the drainage facilities have been determined to be adequate
by the City Engineering Department, there is some concern with the
"free" water runoff from the proposed storage areas into the Otay
River Valley and it is recommended that a silt fence be installed
along the southern border of the storage area to help protect the
environmentally sensitive wetland to the south.
5. Floodplain/Floodway
The entire project site is located within the Otay River 100 year
floodplain. However, since the proposed storage area is located well
to the north of the floodway, which crosses the site on the
southeastern corner, this is not considered to be of significant
environmental concern.
6. Coastal Zone
The western portion of the proposed storage area is located within
the California Coastal Zone and a coastal development permit from the
California Coastal Commission is required for any development within
this zone.
-4-
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Illegal Dumping
Because fencing of the site is required prior to project approval, no
further mitigation will be required to avoid significant
environmental effects.
2. Wetlands
A wetland has been identified on the proposed storage area on the
southeastern corner of the proposed storage area {PSBS #863). The
applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the project to avoid this
environmentally sensitive wetland, therefore, no additional
mitigation is necessary.
3. Biology
During the wetlands delineation study, a California Gnatcatcher was
sighted on the site. Since this bird would not be expected to
utilize any portion of the proposed storage area, this project would
not have any adverse impact on the species and, therefore, no
mitigation is necessary.
4. Drainage
Because a silt fence is required to be installed prior to project
approval on the southern border of the proposed storage area, no
further mitigation is required to avoid significant environmental
effects.
5. Floodplain/Floodway
Since the proposed storage area is located well to the north of the
Otay River floodway, no mitigation is necessary.
6. Coastal Zone
Due to the location of the project within the California Coastal
Zone, a coastal development permit is required.
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
-5-
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed temporary storage yard will not degrade the quality of
the environment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed temporary storage yard does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental 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 proposed temporary storage yard will not result in any adverse
environmental effects that are cumulative in nature.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed temporary storage yard contains no environmental effects
which could cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Carol Gore, Fire Marshal
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Steve Griffin, Current Planning
Barbara Reid, Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advanced Planning
Lee McEachern, Planning Intern
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watten/Bruce Warren
-6-
2. Documents
Title 19 Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista General Plan
EIR, Ci~ of Chula Vista
Wetlands Delineation Study, PSBS #863
Federal Register/Vol. 54 No. 43/Tuesday, March 7, 1989
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 au comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 {Rev. 3/88)
WPC 7026P
city of chula vista planning department CI1~'0~
environmental review section. CHU[A VISTA
:, ' Case No. ~-
-Fee ~,~._
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd ~$::=/,.~?~
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE FAIVRE STREET~ WEST
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or descrtption)~_
................... __
Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No. 622-190-15
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A"
4. Name of Applicant H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
Address Post Office Bgx ~ Phone 566-2000
City S~n Di~9~ State California ~tp 92112
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Mark Watton/Bruce Worre~
Address Post Office Box §4 Phone 566-2000
City San ni~gn State California Zip 92117
Relation to Applicant Emplo,yee
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
X Cond. Use Permit X Site Plan;&X)/Vr)~bRX)ReYe~)~(~('
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geolo!~y Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans . Hydrological Study
X Site Plan X 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 "
EN 3 (Rev. 12182)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 132,138 or acreage 3.0
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
None
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family .. Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms .,, Total units
d. Gross density (OU/total acres)
e. Net density (OU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided.
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is Fommercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Indu~trial/C~mmercial
b. Floor area ~ 500 Sq. Ft. Height of structure(s) ~ 15 Ft.
c. Type of construction used in the structure Temporary Portable
Buildings or Trailers
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Adjacent to paved city
streets - Broadway to East, Faivre Street to North
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 *
· Answers to these questions will depend on type of temporary ~se.
iS is anticipated that In dny ~e LI,~ ,~qu;,=d ~'~",s .,Il ..... inimal and
employees could range from 0 to very few. If a proposed use is auto or
truck sales this activity could result in a small number of customers.
However, the impact of this would be minimal.
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate South Bay
4 Mile radius. Estimate from inquiries received from area business
fnr ,~c~c ty~(~l O~ wh~t iS
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Outside storage - up to lO0~ of use
j. Hours of operation 6 AM to 10 PM
k. Type of exterior lighting Security lighting, if required, shielded
to direct light away from street and adjacent structures.
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project Temporary uses as outlined in Attachment,"A"
b. Type of facilities provided None
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 *
· To be determined with use as allowed under Conditional Use Permit.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of 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 backftlled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Possible electrical consumption by
temporary office structure {if used}
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) none
5. If the project will result in any employnmnt opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. This depends on type of temporary use.
Employment may range from 0 to several employees.
6. Will highly flan~nable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? None-H.G. Fenton Material Co. has a policy of not allowing hazardous
materials on company owned property.
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? The tempohary uses contemplated should result in minimal
traffic impact.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
None
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geolo~
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. Hydrolo~
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Yes
Site is adjacent to the Otay River.
- 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. NONE
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? Some noise may be generated on site depending
· impact s~ould be non-existant.
4. Biomogy
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
(if 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? No
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Perimeter fencing now on site, no current
structures or users on site,
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Back of industrial uses no access. Auto. Sales. Three
single family residences near intersection of Jacqua & Faivre Street
South Otav River
East Towinq impound/vehicle storage
West Truck terminal/semi-trailer Darkino & storage
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.
The proposed uses of this area would be on a temporary basis. No permanent
improvements or structures are proposed. The proposed use takes advantage of
the existing flat and clear portion of the parcel. No grading, other than
finish grading, is contemplated or proposed. No removal of large brush or
trees is contemplated or proposed.
In opinion of applicant, no negative impacts will occur to existing adjacent land
uses due to proposed use and activity on subject parcel.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
r~r-F or
Consultant or Agent*
Vice President
Fenton-Western Properties
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.
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
FAIVRE STREET, WEST
ATTACHMENT "A"
Application for Conditional Use Permit allowing
temporary use of the existing flat and clear area. Such
uses as proposed are vehicle parking and storage,
equipment yard, temporary offices, custodial and
security facilities, or other related activities on a
temporary basis.
-8-
Case No.
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~.~
North ~ ! J [~ .
South ~k~-~.
East ~)t ~
West m ,~ / ~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: ' ~f~c~ ~P~ -~
SouthN°rth '' ~ ',
East ~ ~5~ ~ ~
West ~, k k
Y
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 acrea~)e reg~irements in the Park Service
District? ~ ~_~
How many acres of parkland,gre 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? n(If ~o, describe in detail.)
- 9 -
3. Schools y~-/~
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? {If
so, please describe.) ~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity {per year) y~Yf~
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Director oW Planning or ep~sentative ~ Date
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. .Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? _
b. Will the proje, ct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards~
c. Will the project create any iflooding hazards? /~,~,~
d. What is the location and ~escri,ption~of existing on-site
drainage facilities, ~;'~
et Are they adequate to serve ~he project? _
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~/),q~ ,.~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. !ransportation
a. What roads prgvide 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 compl etlon?
/ ~efore
~ After
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access road~ adequate to serve the project~
If not, explain briefly. ~ - _
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing Streets? ._ ~]~>
, / If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Landslide or slippage?_
b. Is an engineering geolo~
project? ~ report necessary to evaluate tBe
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? ~
b. If yes, what a~e these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Fo~m
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. Nhat 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 ~ noise anal2sis be required
- 12 -
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
Hydrocarbons ~ ,- . X 118.3
=
NOx (NO2) ~l~ X 20.0 :
Particulates ~. ~
Sulfur ~.,~ ~ 1.5
x
8. W~fe Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~J./~. ~iquid
I~hat is the location and Size of existin se ' .
to the site? ~<~'-~_/~,.'~, ^ g ~er lines ontor adjacent
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.)
Remark s/necessary mi tigation,~ measuresx
- 13-
Case No. /_~,~ -~
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? /.? ~-,~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? _~
'ire(_~pirshal ~ bate
-13(a)-
Case
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 A) /~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or
Representative Date
October 2, 1989
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
VIA: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist~{
SUBJECT: Comments on Initial Studies for Interim Uses in Otay River Valley
IS-90-7M
1. Development of a storage area on the Fenton parcel southwest of the
end on Mace Street (south of Main Street) has the potential to adversely
impact the existing sycamore trees located on the northwest portion of
that parcel. In addition, the presence of the sycamore trees indicates
that the entire parcel may be an existing wetland. I suggest requiring
a biological survey so that a wetland determination can be made. If the
area is a wetland, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit should
be required as a condition of approval.
2. I am concerned that development of the site for storage or required
roadway improvements may improve access to Otay River Valley and encourage
adaitional dumping of garbage which is already a serious problem. Fencing
should be required between the proposed storage and/or roadway improvement
and habitat areas.
IS-90-SM
1. I suggest requiring a biological survey to determine if the site, or
any portion of it, is a wetland. If it is a wetland, a Section 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be required.
2. See ~2 under IS-90-7M.
IS-90-9M
1. See ~l under IS-90-8M.
2. See ~2 under IS-90-7M.
3. The attached map shows that a portion of the proposed storage is within
the Coastal Zone. A Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal
Commission is required for the portion of the proposed storage (and any
roadway improvements, fencing, etc.) planned within the Coastal Zone
boundary. Commission issuance of permits follows local action on the
proposed project. As a condition of approval, a Commission issued permit
(or de minimus waiver) should be required.
RP:sc
Attachment
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
November 15, 1989 NOV ~ 7 ~6~
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: C.U.P. Applications - Faivre Street and Mace Street
Case No: IS-90-7M, IS-90-8M, IS-90-9M
Dear Barbara:
Enclosed is the Wetlands Delineation Studies covering
the areas as we discussed. Keith Merkel seems to have
covered the areas of concern.
Let me know what I can expect for a schedule to complete
the C.U.P. process so I can make budget forecasts for my
next fiscal year.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Vacant Lands Manager
MW:cfd
Ref:MW:CCVli15
Enclosure
Post Office Box 985, National City, California 92050 (619) 477e5333
8 November 1989
Mr. Mark Watton PSBS #863
It. G. Fenton Material Company
P. O. Box 64
San Diego, CA 92112
· Dear Mr. Watton:
Wetland delineation studies have been completed on the three areas requested in
your 30 October 1989 letter. Each area is discussed separately below, and each is shown
graphically in an enclosed figure.
All the delineations were conducted on 1 November 1989 by Keith W. Merkel and
Adam Koltz, using the Federal Unified Method, routine delineation procedures (Federal
lnteragency Committee on Wetland Delineation 1989). Lacking topography on the two
Faivre Street properties, boundaries are tied to plotted objects such as power poles and
fences. A previously received topographic map of the Mace Street property was used in
delination at this site and information was then transferred to the project plan.
1. Beyer Boulevard/Faivre Street Property (Figure 1)
The wetland limit is basically contiguous with the lower slope of the berm
along the southern property boundary. The wetland only intrudes onto the
property in a very small area along the eastern part of the southern property
boundary. The proposed use, as shown, will not impact this high quality,
willow riparian wetland. The wetland fringe along this site is characterized
by the pre-dominance of Sandbar Willow (Sal£r hindsiana), Arroyo Willow (S.
lasiolepis) and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).
II. Faivre Street (West) Property (Figure 2)
The southern, lower slope of the existing berm on this property serves as the
northern boundary of an area characterized by alluvial fan scrub and a willow
and mulefat riparian wetland. Only at the eastern end of the property does
the wetland intercede over the berm and onto the previously graded area.
This small area represents a previously cleared wetland characterized by the
re-emergence of wetland species, including Sandbar Willow (SalLr hindsiana
var. leucodendroides), Mulefat (Baccharis salisiJblia), Castor Bean (R[chltts
c'ommuais), Western Ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and Jimsonweed
(Datura wrightii). This disturubed wetland area appears to be groundwater
fed and due to its adjacency to the higher quality riverene wetlands its
recovery should be encouraged. This would entail avoidance of this area by
refinement of the project area.
*ir. Mark Watton 2 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
Of significance during this survey was the sighting in the alluvial fan scrub
vegetation of a California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica), a sensitive
species most often found in sage scrub habitat. This bird would not be
expected to utilize any portions of the proposed project area and the project
would not be expected to have a adverse impact on the species.
III. Mace Street Property (Figure 3)
On this property, the majority of the wetland is well south of the previously
graded area now proposed for material storage. The intervening area is
disturbed alluvial land and prehistoric riverwash deposits which were
previously mined for sand and gravel. A few isolated wetlands have re-
emerged within this disturbed area, and are characterized by Curly Dock
(Rumex ctispus), Mexican Tea ( Chenopodium ambrosioides), Mulefat, Castor
Bean, Cocklebur (Xanthium strumadum), Giant Cane (Arundo donor),
Rabbitfoot Beardgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis). A few large Sycamores
(Platanus racemosa) also occur. Wetlands on the southern portion of the
property are extremely well developed willow riparian and Mulefat shrubland
communities.
Along the northern property boundary., parking lot drainage has created two
extremely small sump type wetlands of 5-10 feet in width, characterized by
such roadside ditch species as Curly Dock, Mexican Tea, scattered Rabbitfoot
Beardgrass, and seedling Mulefat. These areas are wetlands under the
jurisidiction of the Corps of Engineers covered under the Nationwide Permits
at 33 CFR 330.$(a)(26) and would not require special permitting for fill.
They are not within the jurisdiction of the CDFG. The loss of these two
wetlands would not be of importance.
Based on our findings, we recommend that the cross hatched area on Figure
2 be removed from use. Additionally, x~e recommend that some sort of a low,
containment berm be placed along the site boundarv to prevent runoff from
the storage lots and physically define the use area such that it does not slowly
expand. With these changes we believe that the proposed uses of the three
properties would not significantly impact the wetlands thereon, and would
have no impact to the high quality willow woodlands on the southern portions
or off-site to the south of the sites.
When more permanent development is proposed in these areas, fencing or other
buffers should be utilized to control dumping or access of humans and domestic animals
into the wetlands. It is recognized that this will have only an incremental effect, however,
ir x~ill provide some level of control on the "out of control" Otay River access situation.
Mr. Mark Watton 3 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call at (619) 474-3530.
Sincerely,
Keith W. Merkel
Vice President
LITERATURE CITED
Federal lnteragency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.
76pp. plus appendices.
stl
Enclosure: Figures 1, 2 and 3
'~' ~ PSBS #863
Wetland
N
FIGURE 1. WETLAND DELINEATION -- ~'
BEYER BOULEVARD/FA1VRE STREET SITE r--- ~oo'
\Vctland
AIlu',ial Fan Scrub ~ Recommended Deletion From Project
FIGURE 2. WETLAND DELINEATION --
FAIVRE STREET (gVEST) SITE
~ ~ PSBS #863
~,~. ctL~nd
N
FIGURE 3. WETLAND DELINEATION --
MACE STREET SITE
84 EAST J STREET CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOAROOFEOUCATJON ~j':~i:~, ,;~~
DB ,JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS
OPAL FULLER
SHARON GILES
JUOY SCHULENBERG
PRANKATARANTINO September 13, 1989
SUPEmNTE.OEm SEP 1 8 1989
ROBERT J. McCARTHY
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No. IS-90-gH
Applicant: H. G. Fenton Material Company
Location: South of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Dear Mr. Reid:
Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and
the District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two
years. Six more were installed this fall at schools in the western
portion of the District to assist in meeting growth demands.
Please be advised that this project is in the Harborside 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
Sweetwater School District
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
n-~Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[-']Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/DP )
[]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
F-]Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB-__/DP )
[]]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- .)
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date ~;~ ~) Person ~(,~.~ Time ~
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
· ' RECEIVED
ROUTING FORN SEP 081989
BY
DATE: September 8, 1989 DEPT. OF BUILDING AND HOUSINi
C!TY OF CHULA VISTA CAUFORN!f
"~ Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
~ F M: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
~ sFu~BjMicT: ~]Application for initial Study (iS_90_9M /FA_ 439 /Dp 693)
[-1Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB-__/DP
[]]]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/DP .)
[]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by. 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person(, Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7~89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA-_439 /DP 693 )
[--~Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /F8-- /DP
[-1Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB-__/Dp
[]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by. 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
:~} t~ I~~-I :~:~, b AL-A~ I~, ~- ~ l~ r'.
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM ~! ~:
DATE: September 8, 1989
T . Ken Larson, Building & Housing ~-- ~ ~
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
//~: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: n~-]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
C]Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
~--lReview of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
F-]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR on]y)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: X~-]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
[Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR~ /FB-_ /DP
[]-]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[]]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__./ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by__ 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date
Person Time
EN 4 (Re,.,. 7/89) ~
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~-}Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
[~Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB-_. /DP )
[]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
r-~Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
~OUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
~ Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
~'o,,,,. , Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Co~rdinat~or
SUBJECT: [~]Application for Initial Study (IS-90-9M /FA- 439 /DP 693 )
[]Checkprint Draft FIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR-. )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary uses of the 3.0 acre site,
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific proposals are subject to staff review.
Location:
south of Faivre at Jacqua Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
i PLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
ICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
MMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. .
The following information must be disclosed:
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. H.G. Fenton Material Company
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
H.G. Fenton Material Company
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.
E.F. Hunte
Western Salt Company
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes Noxx If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership,.joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or comb~ation acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~L/~/~./J LL//~.~ ~_~/x.~//1 f~//~_.~.~, ~- ~--/~y//~
{Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P Bruc~ ¥:arren
A-110 ~rint or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Pcc-go-3M; request for a
conditional use permit for trailer storage at the
southwest end of Mace Street
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, H. G. Fenton Company, is proposing the use of 1.4 a~res of
land located at the southwest end of Mace Street for temporary vehicle
and trailer storage with an on site mobile commercial trailer office with
sanitary facilities to be used by the truck drivers.
The proposed uses will be confined to the existing flat and clear areas
located on the northern quarter of the site well north of the floodway
and no permanent structures or improvements are proposed. The items
which will be stored may be transported overseas, across the country, or
transported between Long Beach and San Diego County. Examples of some of
the materials that were listed on the manifest of one company which is
interested in leasing space included: women's clothing, seashells,
electronic component parts, household goods (for people moving from
overseas), safes, furniture, gloves, bicycles, motorcycle parts and
exercise clothing. One month is usually the longest time that any
materials are stored.
A somewhat similar proposal had gone before the Montgomery Planning
Committee (MPC) from H. G. Fenton almost a year ago. At that time, the
applicant had proposed a master conditional use permit for the MPC's
approval basically for storage purposes. Specific uses were to be worked
out at the Zoning Administrator level.
The members of the Committee voiced their concern over the granting of a
Master Conditional Use Permit. The MPC preferred that the conditional
use permit be for a specific use. They also requested additional
information on traffic be included in the Negative Declaration and
requested corrections to the Initial Study.
As a result, the Fenton staff modified their proposal, to one for a
specific use, trailer storage, and met with a subcommittee of the MPC and
staff at the time of their submittal in order to obtain additional input
as to the specific conditions MPC may require. These are stated in
Section 2B. Recommendation. The City required the applicant to undertake
a traffic study to answer concerns raised by the MPC (please see the June
12, 1990 memo from Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer to Barbara Reid,
Assistant Planner on Additional Traffic Information
Pertainin9 to th~
Proposed Traffic Storage Facility to be Located in the Montgomer~
Area/Application by Fenton Western Properties and Final Technical Report
Montgomer~ Analysis prepared by the City by JHK and Associates dated June
11, 19~U (attached).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 2
Staff also made the necessary changes to the Initial Study and prepared
an addendum to the Negative Declaration which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project.
An Initial Study, IS-90-7M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
December 29, 1989. An addendum has also been prepared. The
Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and is recommending that a Negative
Declaration be adopted.
At the meeting of the MPC on July ll, 1990, the MPC unanimously voted to
adopt the Negative Declaration issue of an IS-90-7M and based on the
findings contained in Section E of this report, unanimously voted to
adopt PCC-90-3M for a conditional use permit for temporary truck trailer
storage at the southwest end of the Mace Street subject to the conditions
that follow.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that the project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-7M.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-90-3M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for vehicle and trailer storage and a mobile office trailer
at the southwest end of Mace Streets subject to the following
conditions:
a. The conditional use permit is granted for a period of two years
from the time of approval by City Council and may be extended
in one year increments, with a maximum tenure of five years
upon written request and review prior to expiration of the
permit.
b. Per environmental documents, the applicant shall provide 6 foot
fencing of the storage area with particular attention to making
the fence at the entrance to the facility child proof (for
climbing or going under) and also install a silt fence on the
southern border of the storage area within 30 days of the
granting of the conditional use permit.
c. Applicant to provide a fire hydrant, and a fire access road
with the ability to handle the weight of fire apparatus. Minimum
fire flow to be 1000 gpm with 20 psi residual.
d. Office trailer must be a State approved commercial coach with
sanitation facilities.
e. Applicant is required to submit details of signage and lighting
programs when a specific project is proposed.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 3
f. Street dedication shall be required to provide ultimate
half-width of 36 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the site on
Mace Street as directed by the City Engineer, and a driveway
approach be provided to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer.
g. Installation of a 6-foot chain link fence on the western side
and northern parts of the property and a silt fence on the
south side of the proposed storage area and northerly of the
wetlands and alluvial fan scrub area shall be installed within
30 days of the granting of the conditional use permit.
h. Failure to comply with conditions of approval or complaints
filed shall constitute grounds for review and possible
revocation of the use permit.
i. Building permit is required for temporary trailer.
j. A monitoring program for the CUP shall be developed by staff
and checked once every three months. Any problems should be
brought to the attention of the Montgomery Planning Committee.
k. No hazardous or combustible materials are to be stored on the
site. No materials that require placarding by DOT (Department
of Transportation) either Federal or State will be allowed.
1. No maintenance/repair of trucks is allowed on the site.
m. The Planning Department and designated members of the
Montgomery Planning Committee shall have the right to check the
manifest list of stored materials on 24 hours notice.
n. Security personnel provide 24 hours supervision of the site and
an additional trailer shall be provided for the same.
(Conditions j thru n were recommended by the Montgomery Planning
Committee.)
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North M-50, M-58 Industrial center, auto dismantling
South A-70 Otay River
East M-54 Industrial recycling
West M-54 Auto dismantling
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 4
Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is a 1.4 acre vacant parcel of land located on the
southwest end of Mace Street. The northern portion of the site is flat
and clear of brush. The southern portion of the site slopes to the Otay
River and is located within the floodplain.
Proposed Use
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
temporary use of the 1.4 acre existing flat and clear areas of the site.
Proposed uses for the site are vehicle and trailer storage and a mobile
office trailer with sanitary facilities. The site plan accompanying this
report shows the location of 35 forty foot truck trailer spaces in the
northern portion of the site and access from Mace Street. Slats are
proposed within the existing chainlink fencing along the northern part of
the property and southerly of the culmination of Mace Street. Proposed
hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to lO:O0 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The manifest of items
stored will be available to the Planning Department and members of the
Montgomery Planning Committee on a prearranged confidential basis. A
provision of the lease with any leasee will strictly and specifically
prohibit any use or storage of toxic or hazardous materials on this site.
No permanent improvements or structures are proposed, no grading is
proposed other than finish grading for the project.
D. ANALYSIS
The project site is designated "Whitelands" on the Montgomery Specific
Plan and is slated for "special comprehensive study" in the near future.
The plan also suggests that this parcel of land be incorporated within
the proposed "Otay River Regional Park and Open Space Preserve." The
present City adopted County zoning is M-54 which allows the proposed use.
Because the site is located within the Whitelands study area and is being
considered by the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and the
City of Chula Vista for use as a Regional Park/Open Space Preserve, the
Planning Department has concluded that it will be a number of years
before a specific land use designation for this area is determined.
During this "interim" period until the comprehensive study is completed
and the specific land use designation is determined, the landowner should
be allowed viable economical use of their land on a temporary basis.
Approving this permit for a limited period of time (two years, with a
maximum tenure of five years), the use would be consistent with the
intent of the plan and would protect the publics future interest in the
"Whitelands".
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July ll, 1990 Page 5
In response to the environmental sensitivity, of the area on the southern
portion of the site, the applicant is proposing to install a silt fence
on the southern border of the property as well as installing a fence
around the entire site to help discourage illegal dumping, that is
prevalent in this area.
E. FINDINGS
1. The proposed storage area would provide for the storage of various
items of material and equipment that are useful to the continued
operation of businesses within the community.
2. The proposed storage area is surrounded by industrial uses and will
not result in impacts from aesthetic degradation which would
adversely affect humans or surrounding properties.
3. The proposed storage area will comply with the applicable
conditions, codes and regulations for the Montgomery area.
4. The site is located in the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit allowing'
this use for a temporary period, and the Planning Department s
ability to phase out this use if open space is determined to be the
best for the area, this project will be consistent with the
applicable plans and policies.
WPC 7996P
BRITTON AVE.
I
I
I
I PROJECT
LOCATION
I
~1 ~oo~o~
,/', ~ /
, ,
H. G. FENTON
COMPANY
~NDRTH ~ o~ ~c~
4C. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-3M Request for a conditional
use permit for trailer storage at the
southwest end of Mace Street
Assistant Planner Reid indicated the following corrections to the
staff report:
Title of staff report - the word "vehicle and" should be removed
as the CUP is for trailer storage only. Condition "k" regarding
the school impact fees is to be eliminated.
Conditions modified by MPC
b. Per environmental documents, the applicant shall provide
fencing of the storage area with particular attention to
making the fence at the entrance to the facility child proof
(for climbing or going under) and also install a silt fence
on the southern border of the storage area within 30 days of
the granting of the conditional use permit. Construction of
the silt fence to be modified as outlined in PCC-90-1M.
g. (Hazardous materials -- is this the same as PCC-90-1M? It
was not mentioned during consideration of this item. -rms)
h. No servicing or maintenance of trucks is allowed on site.
k. Remove condition on school impact fees.
1. Installation of an 8-foot chain link fence on the western
side of the area proposed for use and a slatted chain link
fence on the northern part of the property and a silt fence
on the south side of the proposed storage area and northerly
of the wetlands and alluvial fan scrub area shall be
installed within 30 days of the granting of the conditional
use permit. Construction of the silt fence to be modified
as outlined in PCC-90-1M.
The Subcommittee had considered the slats unnecessary
because of the lack of adjacent neighbors and the need
for security visibility because of the more remote area
in which this fence is located.
MSUC to find that the project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-90-7M with the necessary changes. [(Palmer/Castro) 7-0.]
MSUC that based on findings contained in Section "E" of this
report, to approve the request PCC-90-3M, for a Conditional Use
Permit for trailer storage and a mobile office trailer at the
south west end of Mace Streets subject to the conditions outlined
in the staff report as modified and with an amendment to the
stated fire control requirements of "1,000 gallons/minute" to
read "with 20-pound residual".
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION
SOUTH END OF MACE STREET
This proposal is for short term temporary uses of the
property as outlined in the application. The proposed
use would occur on the North portion of the parcel only,
therefore, no removal of brush or grading would take
place, other than to remove existing trash and debris
and to put a finish grade on the lot. There is no
incursion into the floodway or any identified wetlands.
The proposed uses to be allowed under this Conditional
Use Permit are in demand in this area as evidenced by
the large volume of calls that this vacant lot
generates. As well, this type of use would appear to be
very important to industrial users in the South Bay as
an adjunct to the existing commercial/industrial
developments. As we propose for this Conditional Use
Permit, and the City's ability to place time limits or
renewal dates on said uses, we believe that the public
safety and welfare and impacts to properties in the
vicinity will be very limited to non-existent. We also
believe that the impact of the proposed uses to the
general plan of the City will be at a minimum due to the
temporary nature of the uses and the City's ability to
modify or not renew the Conditional Use Permit.
Utilities are available to the site from existing
adjacent service. Power is currently available on-site.
Telephone is available from existing overhead lines
adjacent to the site. Water is available from existing
laterals to the site.
Sanitary facilities will be provided in the temporary
office trailers positioned on site. Fencing to secure
the site will be provided, with access to and from the
site only where noted on plan. No access to adjacent
vacant land will be allowed. A provision of the Lease
with any Lessee will strictly and specifically prohibit
any use or storage of toxic or hazardous materials on
this site.
Ref:MW:CUP.MACE
April 9, 1990
File # ZB-193(A)
TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner
VIA: Clifford L. Swans~Deputy Director of Public
Works/City Engine~
FROM: William A. Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer~
Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer~/
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Vehicle Parking and
Storage at the South End of Mace
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal and
recommends approval subject to the following condition:
1o Street dedication to provide ultimate half-width of 36 feet
of right of way adjacent to the site on Mace Street as
directed by the City Engineer.
2. Provide a driveway approach to the satisfaction of the City
Traffic Engineer.
The following items ~'w~l be required in conjunction with building
permits under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, if
building valuation exceeds $10,000 or whatever limit is in effect
at the time the permit is issued:
1. Street widening on Mace Street to provide 26 feet from
Centerline to edge of pavement. Public improvements may
include, but not be limited to:
A. Asphalt concrete dike
B. Asphalt concrete paving
C. Cul de sac
D. Street lights
2. A construction permit will be required ~or any work
performed in the street ~ght of way.
3. Submittal of improvement plans
4. A grading permit if the exemptions in the grading ordinance
are not met.
5. Sewer, traffic signal, and impact fees will be assessed when
the building permit is issued.
HSB:jg
(RJ~FORMS~CUP.DOC)
REQUEsT"FOR CONNENTS =
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
TO: __ Graphics
.__~Fire Marshal __ Landscape Architect
X Building & Housing __ Env. Review Coordinator
__X Advance Planning ._X _Chula Vista School District
_X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
_ X Engineering/Land Development Div. X__~ken Lee (Notice only)
FROM: Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
Planning Department
Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton - Conditional
_ Precise Plan ~se Permit (Modification) ~
ZAV- Variance
Location South end of Mace St.
PCZ- Zone Change --
PCM- Miscellaneous
Request Modification is from the
~UD- Planned Unit Development ]~reviously applied for master conditional
P~CA- Zoning Text Amendment
u~se permit to an application for a CUP for
~PA- General Plan Amendment .~he specific uses detailed here - vehicle and
-- Other
trailer storage; custodial and security
faculties.
Deposit Account Number DP-
Mon.tgomerv Planning Co~
~:~=mm~ Meeting Date
April 18, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date ............
Comments to be received by:__ April 5, 1990
RECEIVED
REQUEST,,FOR 60MMENTS'~
Chula Vista Planning Department MAR22 ~990
DATE: March 22, 1990 DEPF. OF BUILDING AND HOUSIN~
C!TYO~CNULAVISTA CAL!FORNI,q
TO: ~6raphics
.___~__X Fire Marshal _ Landscape Architect
Env. Review Coordinator
-___~__X Building & Housing ~X -Chula Vista School District
~X_Advance Planning
~X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
X Engineering/Land Development Div. _~X .Ken Lee (Notice only)
,FROM~ Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
Planning Department
PC-~C-90-3 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton - Conditional
P~- Precise Plan Nse Permit (Modification)
Z~AV- Variance
Location South end of Mace St.
P~CZ- Zone Change --
P~CM- Miscellaneous
Request Modification is from the
~UD- Planned Unit Development ~reviously applied for master conditional-
~CA- Zoning Text Amendment
~se permit to an application for a CUP fo~
SPA- General Plan Amendment .the specific uses detailed here - vehicle a~
-- Other _
_~railer storage; custodial and security
facilities.
Deposit Account Number DP-
Montgomerv Planning committee ......
~m~:~omm~o~ Meeting Date
April l~, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date ............
Comments to be received by: April 5, 1990
REQUEST ',FOR CONMENTS
Chula Vista Planning Department
DATE: March 22, 1990
TO: _ _Graphics
~X Fire Marshal landscape Architect
· Env. Review Coordinator
X Build.ing & Housing ---X Chula Vista School District
___J__X Advance Planning ~X Sweetwater Union H.S.District
__X Engineering/Land Development Div. X Ken Lee (Notice only)
FROM: Barbara Reid (Current Planning)
Planning Department
~CC-90-3 Conditional Use Permit Project Name H.G. Fenton - Conditional
P~' Precise Plan Use Permit (Modification)
ZAV- Variance Location South end of Mace St.
~CZ- Zone Change
~CM- Miscellaneous Request Modification is from the
~UD- Planned Unit Development ~reviously applied for master conditional
PCA- Zoning Text Amendment ~use permit to an application for a CUP fo~
SPA- General Plan Amendment t~he specific uses detailed here - vehicle a
__ Other
trailer storage; custodial and security
facilities.
Deposit Account Number DP-
Montgomery Planning Committee
B~:~omm~$~ Meeting Dat~. ADril 18, 1990
Zoning Administrator Hearing Date ............
Comments to be received by: April 5, 1990
CONMENTS: ~ ~
'-~-'"~ ' .... -,: '~' '--T.:~ ~ ~ ~ "'~"~"" ~-'~' ~ ?0~]
ADDENDUM TO FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY
OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-90-TM
A. BACKGROUND
The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide
that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant
project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for
significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated
in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC
finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact
or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may
recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the
environmental document for the project.
Previous Project
The previous project involved a master conditional use permit for
temporary use of the existing flat and clear area of the site located on
the southwest end of Mace Street. Temporary uses proposed for the site
included building material storage, vehicle parking and storage, records
storage in portable metal containers, an equipment yard, temporary
offices, a lumber yard, and other related activities. Specific uses, as
proposed, would be subject to review by the Zoning Administrator.
Proposed Project
The current proposal involves a conditional use permit for temporary use
of the existing flat and clear land on the northern portion of the site.
The proposal is for truck trailer storage specifically, and calls for 35
forty foot truck-trailer spaces and a mobile office-trailer with sanitary
facilities available to the drivers storing material on the site. The
trucks will be storing materials which are in the process of being
transported from one county to another or across the country or overseas.
Examples of the types of items which may be stored could include: women's
clothing, seashells, electronic component parts, household goods {for
people moving overseas) safes, furniture, bicycles, motorcycle parts and
exercise clothing. One month is usually the longest time that any
materials are stored.
B. ANALYSIS -°
1. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
Fire - In the review of the current conditional use permit, the Fire
Department requires a fire hydrant and that the fire access road
shall be provided with the ability to handle the weight of fire
apparatus and a knox box for the locked gates.
Traffic - The attached Montgomery Traffic Analysis was required of
~plicant by the City to determine the answers to questions
raised by the Montgomery Planning Committee. The attached memo from
Hal Rosenberg summarizes the responses to the specific questions
asked which were: Current ADT and LOS before and after the project
completion at Main and Mace Street and at Hilltop and Main; Peak hour
volumes at the above mentioned intersections and that access be
addressed. The attached memo from Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic
Engineer and Montgomery Traffic Analysis discuss the above sited
issues. To summarize the findings of the Montgomery Traffic
Analysis, the LOS before and after the project meets the City of
Chula Vista threshold standards and, therefore, no traffic mitigation
is required for this project. However, the Public Works Department
has conditioned approval of the project on: street dedication to
provide the ultimate half-width of 36 feet of right-of-way adjacent
to the site on Mace Street ad directed by the City Engineer and the
provision of a driveway approach to the satisfaction of the City
Traffic Engineer.
2. Identification of Environmental Effects
a. Wetlands
A wetland has been identified on the southern portion of the
site as well as a few isolated wetlands along the northern
property boundaries that were created by Parking Lot Drainage.
The proposed use as it is situated will not affect the wetland
to the south and the loss of the two isolated wetlands on the
northern portion of the site would not be of any environmental
importance (see PSBS Study, November 8, 1989).
b. Floodplain/Floodway
The project site is located within the Otay River lO0-year
floodplain. As the truck-trailer storage area is located well
to the north of floodplain, this is not considered to be of
significant environmental concern.
c. Drainage
Due to the concern of~'"free" water runoff from the proposed
truck-trailer storage area into the Otay River Valley, the
applicant is required to construct a silt fence along the
southern border of the proposed storage area to help protect the
environmentally sensitive wetland to the south.
-2-
d. Schools
~c The Montgomery Planning Committee has in the past expressed
t~ particular concern regarding the response of the School
~ . Districts to the notice of initial study information as to the
~.c~q. ~-~. policy of the School Districts. In this case, the Chula Vista
~em~ Ii% School District will charge 12d per square foot (for the mobile
~<,¢~..m~r~?~ .trailer office) and the Sweetwater School District will not
~ ~'~l~equire impact fees.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the
above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed
project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are
necessary to make the Negative Declaration adequate under CEQA and
recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning
Commission adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-90-7M prior to
taking action on the proposed project.
WPC 7656P
-3-
DATE: June 12, 1990
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
FROM: Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Additional Traffic Information Pertaining to the Proposed Truck
Storage Facility to be located in the Montgomery Area/Application by
Fenton Western Properties.
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions raised by the
Montgomery Planning Committee and documented in your memorandum to Linda
Bartholomew dated March 28, 1990. This memorandum is organized in the order
of the questions raised by the Montgomery Planning Committee followed by a
general statement responding to all the questions posed.
1. Mace Street Site
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project completion at Main
and Mace Street and at Hilltop and Main.
Response
Traffic volumes on Main Street in the vicinity of Mace Street and
Hilltop Drive are approximately 21,000 vehicles per day. This
volume based on the City's Level of Service standards represents a
Level of Service A for a four lane major street facility. Traffic
volumes on Mace Street in the vicinity of the project presently is
2,630 vehicles per day. This represents Level of Service value A
for a two-lane collector-type facility. Hill top Drive north of Main
Street presently carries approximately 5,600 vehicles per day. This
value represents Level of Service B for a two-lane collector
facility. It is estimated that the Mace Street site will produce
approximately 168 trips per day assuming an equivalency of two trips
per truck. This volume added to the existing traffic counts is
considered negligible and does not alter the level of service
previously stated. Intersection traffic analysis at Hilltop and
Main with project traffic resulted in no change in level of service
at this latter intersection.
ADT at peak hours at these q~tersections
Response
This question isn't totally clear since ADT and peak hour represent
different time periods. I presume that the question relates to the
peak hour performance of the two intersections. With regard to the
intersection of Main and Mace, the traffic generated by the project
during the peak period does not result in an unacceptable level of
service. At the signalized intersection of Hilltop and Main the
level of service remains at B during the peak period as noted on
Table 2, page 3-2 of the consultant s report.
Barbara Reid -2- June 13, 1990
References (method of determination or studies that have been used
to obtain the above information)
Response
The main source document is the Final Technical Report Montgomery
Traffic Analysis prepared for the City by JHK & Associates dated
June ll, 1990; also data obtained from the City Traffic Engineering
office and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Addressment of access - engineering report showed access from Mace;
Main should be included as an access point.
Response
The traffic analysis performed by the consultant for the City of
Chula Vista included the intersection of Main and Mace Street as a
critical access point for the Mace Street site.
2. PCC 90-2M West End of Faivre
Current ADT and LOS before and after the project
Response
The average daily traffic volume on Faivre Street west of Beyer/
Broadway is 2,179 vehicles per day. The traffic volume on Beyer in
the vicinity of Faivre Street is 12,700 vehicles per day. The
traffic volume on Main Street in the vicinity of Broadway is
approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. All of these volumes
represent a Level of Service A. The Faivre site at the west end,
site 2, generates approximately 528 equivalent vehicle trips per
day. This volume when added to existing traffic count does not
impact daily levels of service.
Determine what hours most trucks will be accessing the site (i.e.,
60% before 7:00 a.m., 25% during peJk hours, 25% after 6:00 p.m.)
Response
Based on information provided by the Fenton Western Properties, the
percent of truck activity occurring during the a.m. peak period is
estimated to be 20%, and during the p.m. peak period is also 20%,
and during the non-peak period approximately 60%.
Determine peak hour traffic
Barbara Reid -3- June 13, 1990
Response
A.M. and p.m. peak hour traffic produced by the site at the west end
of Faivre is shown on Table l, page 2-8, of the consultant's
report. The highest value shown occurred during the p.m. peak
period in the outbound direction and is 80 equivalent trips during
that period of time.
What other streets will be impacted by traffic? (Main Street,
Palm?, etc.)
Response
The traffic produced by the site at the west end of Faivre was
assumed to impact mostly Main Street for a test of the worst-case
condition. This is based primarily on the proximity of the site to
Main Street, a major east/west facility providing connections to I-5
and 1-805.
References/Sources
Response
Same as third response noted in item 1.
3. PCC-90-IM Beyer & Faivre
Verify that figures provided of 12,670 ADT before the project and
12,786 after the project are still current and correct, (since a
specific site plan has been submitted).
Response
According to City of Chula Vista's traffic flow count information,
the volume of traffic on Beyer/Broadway in the vicinity, of Faivre
is 12,670 vehicles per day rounded to the nearest lO vehicles. The
traffic generated by the two ~ites on Faivre- Street equal
approximately 800 trips per day. Thus an increase in traffic on
Beyer/Broadway of 800 vehi6ies per day would result in an average
daily traffic volume of approximately 13,470 vehicles per day; thus,
the previous estimate of 12,786 is modified slightly by the new
information provided by the consultant's report.
Verify that LOS is still A, as shown.
Response
According to the City's LOS standard, the adjusted volume of 13,470
represents an A LOS.
Barbara Reid -4- June 13, 1990
Access should be addressed. Is the main access Faivre, Broadway or
Main? Secondary Access?
Response
For the traffic study performed by the consultant, a worst-case
scenario was assumed in which 100% of the access for both sites on
Faivre Street would utilize Faivre Street exclusively. Secondary
access was not assumed, and it is recommended by the City Traffic
Engineer that access for these sites be restricted to Faivre Street
only.
Provide hours trucks will be accessing the site.
Response
Same as second response in Item No. 2.
References/Sources
Response
Same as third response noted in item 1.
WPC 7933P
negative'- declaration
PROJECT NAME: South Mace Street
.. PROJECT LOCATION: South end of Mace Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: H.G. Fenton Material Company
CASE NO: IS-90-7M DATE: December 29, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project setting consists of 1.5 acres of land located at the southwest
end of Mace Street. The northernmost portion of the site is flat and
clear of brush. The southern portion slopes southward to the Otay River
and is located within the Otay River lO0 year floodplain.
~e surrounding uses include an industrial center and an auto dismantling
business to the north, the Otay River to the south, a metal recycling
business to the east, and an auto recycling business to the west.
B. Project Description
The project involves a master conditional use permit for temporary use of
the existing flat and clear area located on the northern portion of the
site. Temporary uses proposed for the site include building material
storage, vehicle parking and storage, records storage in portable metal
containers, equipment yard, temporary offices, lumber yard, and other
related activities. Specific uses, as they are proposed, are subject to
review by the Zoning Administrator.
No permanent improvements or structures are proposed. No grading, other
than finish grading is proposed .and removal of large brush or trees is not
contemplated or proposed.
In order to minimize the possibility of any significant environmental
impact, the following actions are requSred by the applicant prior to the
approval of a specific use by the Zoning Administrator:
Installation of solid fencing:~nd a silt fence, on the south side of
the proposed storage area and northerly of the wetlands and alluvial
fan scrub area (see Section E.1 and E.4 and attached wetlands
delineation study).
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The site is located within the "Whitelands" special comprehensive study
area and a specific plan designation for this area has not yet been
determined. With the approval of a conditional use permit, allowing this
use for a temporary period, this project will not affect long range plans
and policies. The area is zoned M-$4, City adopted County zoning which,,.
allows the proposed uses.
city o~ chula vista plannincj department £13Y01:
environmenlal review section EH[JIAVISTA
-2-
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
,- 1. Fire/EMS
The distance to the nearest fire station is 2 miles and the Fire
Department estimated reaction time is 7 minutes. With the
installation of a fire hydrant, the Fire Department will be able to
provide adequate fire protection for this project without an increase
in equipment or personnel.
2. Police
The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of
service based on the threshold standards.
3. Traffic
The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and has
requested that the applicant, as part of the project, meet the
following conditions: dedication of 36 ft. right-of-way on Mace
Street and provision of full street improvements with or without
these conditions, the proposed project will not adversely affect the
existing levels of service on roads or intersections in the vicinity.
4. Park/Recreation
As the proposed project is east of 1-805, the City's park thresholds
do not apply and the Parks and Recreation Department has determined
that the proposed project will not exceed adopted threshold standards.
5. Drainage
Drainage facilities are adequate to serve this project.
6. Sewer
Provided the applicant provide access to an existing sewer easement
of the northern side of the site, the proposed project will have an
adequate level of service anU,threshold criteria would be met.
7. Water
The Sweetwater Authority was notified and has not identified any
constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Illegal Dumping
There is some concern that the proposed development of this site
might improve the access to the Otay River Valley which may encourage
additional dumping of garbage in this environmentally sensitive
-3-
area. To help limit this illegal activity and help protect the
environment, fencing of the project site between the proposed storage
area and the sensitive area is required as part of the project.
2. Wetlands
Due to concern of the possible existence of a wetland located on the
project site, a wetlands delineation study was required by the
Environmental Review Coordinator and was conducted {PSBS #863
attached). From this study, it was determined that a wetland does
exist on the southern portion of the site, well south of the proposed
storage area. A few isolated wetlands along the northern property
boundary, created by parking lot drainage, were also identified on
the site.
According to the PSBS report, the proposed storage, as it is
situated, would not affect the extremely well developed willow
riparian wetland located on the southern portion of the site. Also
PSBS has determined that the loss of the two isolated wetlands
located on the northern portion of the site within the proposed
storage area would not be of any environmental importance.
3. Floodplain/Floodway
The project site is located within the Otay River lO0 year
floodplain. Since the proposed flat and clear storage area is
located well to the north of the floodplain/floodway, this is not
considered to be of significant environmental concern.
4. Drainage
Although the drainage facilities have been determined to be adequate
by the City Engineering Department, there is some concern with the
"free" water runoff from the proposed storage areas into the Otay
River Valley and, as a result, the applicant is required to construct
a silt fence along the southern border of the proposed storage area
to help protect the environmentally sensitive wetland to the south.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid sigQ~ficant effects
As it is a requirement of project approval that the applicant be required
to install solid fencing and a silt fence on the south side of the
proposed storage area and northerly of the wetlands and alluvial fan scrub
area, no further mitigation will be required to avoid significant effects.
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.
-4-
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed temporary storage yard will not degrade the quality of
the environment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed temporary storage does not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental 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 proposed temporary storage yard will not result in any adverse
environmental effects that are cumulative in nature.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed temporary storage yard contains no environmental effects
which could cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations ~
City of Chula Vista: Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Steve Griffin, Current Planning
Barbara Reid, Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advanced Planning
Lee McEachern, Planning Intern
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watten/Bruce Warren
-5-
2. Documents
Title 19 Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista General Plan
EIR, City of Chula Vista
Wetlands Delineation Study, PSBS #863
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
92010.
NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 7025P
~" ( ~ FUR OFFICE
Case No. ~__~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE SOUTH MACE STREET
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
sOUTH END OF MACE STREET
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. POR 629-100-07, POR 629-100-08
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A"
4. Name of Applicant H.G. Fenton Material Company
Address Post Office Box 64 Phone 566-2000
City San Dieqo State California Zip 92112
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Bruce Warren/Mark Watton
Address Post Office Box 64 Phone ~6-2000
City San Dieqo State California Zip q?l12
Relation to Applicant Emplosee
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 Permi~ -- Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit X Site ~an ~X~(Y/a~X~
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 X Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map __Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
E~ 3 (Rev. 12/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 63,121 or acreage 1.4
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
None
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density {DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Industrial
b. Floor area 7 500 Sq. Ft. Height of structure(s) 7 15 Ft.
c. Type of construction used in the structure Temporary Portable
Buildings or Trailers ~
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Adjacent to a
paved street - Mace Street
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided *~/m~y~
f. Estimated number of employees per shift ~ , Number of
shifts Total *~A/Z~
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
~tone
*l~e~oe ~rl~w~r~ will depend u. Lype of ~emporary us-~. iL ~
anti~h~-$~w-afry-~$e the required parking will be minimal
-t~nee~emp!oyccs could ran§c~-Fr-u,,, O Lo vu~y~.
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate South Bay, 4 Mile
Radius. Estimate from inquiries received from area business for uses
~' ~ypical_o~wh~t is or, posed.
i. lype/ex:en~ ot operations not in enclosed buildings outside storage
of materials, vehicles. Up to 100% of use.
j. Hours of operation 6 A.M. to 10 P.M.
k. Type of exterior lighting Security lighting. If required, shielded to
direct light away from street and adjacent structures.
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project Temporary uses as outlined in Attachment A
b. Type of facilities provided None
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 *
· To be determined with use as allowed under Conditional Use Permit.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of 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 ~q backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Possible electrical consumption
by temporary office trailer Iif used)
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
/sq. ft. or acres) none
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. This depends on type of temporary use.
Employment may range from 0 to several employees
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? None-H.G.Fenton Material Co. has a policy of not allowing hazardous
· ma~eria'~s on company owned property.
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by .
the project? . The temporary uses contemplated should result in minimal
~ra~lC }mpact.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
None
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Yes
Site is adjacent to the Otay River.
- 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. None
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? Some noise may be 9enerated on site depending on use,
however, because of site location and Knnnent ~d~acent uK~q nni~P impact
should be non-existant.
4. Biology
a.Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project.
Non~
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? None on site - not aware of any
near site.
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Perimeter fencing now on site. No current structures
or users on site.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Northeast corner - industrial building back wall. No access
or view trom current occupants. Northwest corner-auto recycling -
South Otav River
no access.
East ''Metal rec.yclinq business across Mace Street,
West Auto recyclinq business - no access
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) None
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) None
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation ot
~he proposed project.
The proposed uses of this area would be on a temporary basis. No permanent
improvements on structures are proposed. The proposed use takes advantage of
the existing flat and clear portion of the parcel. No grading, other than
finish grading, is contemplated or proposed. No removal of large brush or trees
is contemplated or proposed.
In opinion of applicant, no negative impacts will occur to existing adjacent land
uses due to proposed use and activity on subject parcel.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or Agent* '
Vice President
Fenton-Western Properties
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.
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
SOUTH MACE STREET
ATTACHMENT "A"
Application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing
temporary use of the existing flat and clear area. Such
uses as proposed are b~-i-i-ding mate~i~l =Lu£a~, vehicle ~~-n~'~-
~ storage, ~1
.... 3~u, temporary offices,
custodial and security facilities, ~a'm~=~ 3aad, uz uLi~=J
r ' les on a temporary Dasl~.-
Case No. ,/_~-- ~,~ -7~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: .f~ ~/ /yl~/y~rf/-~
North /yI-5'~-~..WD~-r'~t,C ~ /~-~ ~-~/~'~
South ~ ~ ~ ,- ~J)~5~ ~
West ~-~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~¢~5T~ L
Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~
2. General Plan land use
(lesignation on site: ~h ~ X/~h'ir~.~ /~of~'-F~-'/~t'~
North
South
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? /-:)P~?c(~ly~ ~ ~ ~/~A~'~-~'-J~)
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? prote~c~c~ or
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to ~ '
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? f/-~'~
What is the current park acr~age_requir,_ements in the Park Service
District? /~ ~/-/ ~C~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop. ) AI/.~-!,
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral, resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
T~ ~t'F-~-- ~ ~'iu~ P~t") ~' ~ ~( t~d/,u t'?~ / '
~ 13 ~
Case No.
. N. ~IRE D~EPARTNENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fi~rDepartment be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?_____~
3. Remarks ~ ~
3. Schools A~/~
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? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) ~f~}~-
Natural Gas {per year) '
Water (per day) ~/~
6. Remarks:
Di'rector b~ Planning or Representat~¥e Date
8q
Case .o.
'° Go i~NGINEERING D£PARTMENT
l. 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? A/[~,
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities~ ~?~ ~ O~ ~K~
eL Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ ~ ~ ~
........ ~ What~s-the lOcation and description of existing off-site
'- - drainage facilities? k~k)~ , ~ ~
~re ~hex adequate ~o serve ~he p~o~ec~ ~Q
Transportation
a, ~ha~ ro~ds provide p~ar~ access ~o the pro~ec~ ~e e~ ~q.~
b. ~hat is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. ~o~e ~d~ ~. ~ AY~ m~~ ~
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? . m~/~ .
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
-ll -
Case lo. L$-qO-7 /
.. 3. .Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? /~/K7 }Y)/67~'C~
Li quefacti on?. ~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project? ~(-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4. Soil s ~ ~e~ -
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? ~x~
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 b~ required
of the app]icant? ~ - ~&~ ~q ~(~c{~
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
Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : ~ (TI-7._
HOx {NO2) d~ X 20.0 :
Particulates .... ~ ~ 1.5 :
Sulfur ~% X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid /tv/./], . Liquid ~.
I~hat is the locati9n and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
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 aany
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)]~
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
~y ~g]neer ~r 2epresentat]ve Date
-13(a)-
Case No. /.j-_ ~-7-'~
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 /t~q
Community parks .
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of_the project adequate to~er~e_tbe_~opu]a~ion_~m_c~ease? _
Neighborhood ~bl/~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council pol.icies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
October 2, 1989
TO: Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
VIA: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Robin Putnam, Principal Community Development Specialist~'
SUBJECT: Comments on Initial Studies for Interim Uses in Otay River Valley
IS-90-7M
1. Development of a storage area on the Fenton parcel southwest of the
end on Mace Street (south of Main Street) has the potential to adversely
impact the existing sycamore trees located on the northwest portion of
that parcel. In addition, the presence of the sycamore trees indicates
that the entire parcel may be an existing wetland. I suggest requiring
a biological survey so that a wetland determination can be made. If the
area is a wetland, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit should
be required as a condition of approval.
2. I am concerned that development of the site for storage or required
roadway improvements may improve access to Otay River Valley and encourage
aduitional dumping of garbage which is already a serious problem. Fencing
should be required between the proposed storage and/or roadway improvement
and habitat areas.
IS-90-8M
1. I suggest requiring a biological survey to determine if the site, or
any portion of it, is a wetland. If it is a wetland, a Section 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be required.
2. See #2 under IS-90-7M.
IS-90-9M
1. See #1 under IS-90-SM.
2. See #2 under IS-90-7M.
3. The attached map shows that a portion of the proposed storage is within
the Coastal Zone. A Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal
Commission is required for the portion of the proposed storage (and any
roadway improvements, fencing, etc.) planned within the Coastal Zone
boundary. Commission issuance of permits follows local action on the
proposed project. As a condition of approval, a Commission issued permit
(or de minimus waiver) should be required.
RP:sc
Attachment
H.G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
November 15, 1989
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: C.U.P. Applications - Faivre Street and Mace Street
Case No: IS-90-7M, IS-90-8M, IS-90-9M
Dear Barbara:
Enclosed is %he Wetlands Delineation studies covering
the areas as we discussed. Keith Merkel seems to have
covered the areas of concern.
Let me know what I can expect for a schedule to complete
the C.U.P. process so I can make budget forecasts for my
next fiscal year.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
/MARK WATTON ~
Vacant Lands Manager
MW:cfd
Ref:MW:CCVlll5
Enclosure
~'~~ark Watton PSBS #863
H. G. Fenton Material Company
P. O. Box 64
San Diego, CA 92112
' Dear Mr. Watton:
Wetland delineation studies have been completed on the three areas requested in
your 30 October 1989 letter. Each area is discussed separately below, and each is shown
graphically in an enclosed figure.
All the delineations were conducted on 1 November 1989 by Keith W. Merkel and
Adam Koltz, using the Federal Unified Method, routine delineation procedures (Federal
lnteragency Committee on Wetland Delineation 1989). Lacking topography on the two
Faivre Street properties, boundaries are tied to plotted objects such as power poles and
fences. A previously received topographic map of the Mace Street property was used in
delination at this site and information was then transferred to the project plan.
I. Beyer Boulevard/Faivre Street Property (Figure 1)
The wetland limit is basically contiguous with the lower slope of the berm
along the southern property boundary. The wetland only intrudes onto the
property in a very small area along the eastern part of the southern property
boundary. The proposed use, as shown, will not impact this high quality,
willow riparian wetland. The wetland fringe along this site is characterized
by the pre-dominance of Sandbar Willow (Salix hindsiana), Arroyo Willow (S.
lasiolepis) and Mulefat (Bacchads saliciJblia).
II. Faivre Street (West) Property (Figure 2)
The southern, lower slope of the existing berm on this property serves as the
northern boundary of an area characterized by alluvial fan scrub and a willow
and mulefat riparian wetland. Only at the eastern end of the property does
the wetland intercede over the berm and onto the previously graded area.
This small area represents a previously cleared wetland characterized by the
re-emergence of wetland species, including Sandbar Willow (Sal£r hindsiana
var. leucodendrokles), Mulefat (Baccharis salisiJblia), Castor Bean (Ricbms
communis), Western Ragweed (Ambrosia pxilostaclo'a), and Jimsonweed
(Dautra wrightii). This disturubed wetland area appears to be groundwater
fed and dt, e to its adjacency to the higher quality riverene wetlands its
recovery should be encouraged. This would entail avoidance of this area by
refinement of the project area.
Mr. Mark Watton 2 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
Of significance during this survey was the sighting in the alluvial fan scrub
vegetation of a California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica), a sensitive
species most often found in sage scrub habitat. This bird would not be
expected to utilize any portions of the proposed project area and the project
would not be expected to have a adverse impact on the species.
III. Mace Street Property (Figure 3)
On this property, the majority of the wetland is well south of the previously
graded area now proposed for material storage. The intervening area is
disturbed alluvial land and prehistoric riverwash deposits which were
previously mined for sand and gravel. A few isolated wetlands have re-
emerged within this disturbed area, and are characterized by Curly Dock
(Rumex crispus), Mexican Tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides), Mulefat, Castor
Bean, Cocklebur (Xanthium stmmadum), Giant Cane (Arundo donax),
Rabbitfoot Beardgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis). A few large Sycamores
(Platanus racemosa) also occur. Wetlands on the southern portion of the
property are extremely well developed willow riparian and Mulefat shrubland
communities.
Along the .northern property boundary, parking lot drainage has created two
extremely small sump type wetlands of 5-10 feet in width, characterized by
such roadside ditch species as Curly Dock, Mexican Tea, scattered Rabbitfoot
Beardgrass, and seedling Mulefat. These areas are wetlands under the
jurisidiction of the Corps of Engineers covered under the Nationwide Permits
at 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and would not require special permitting for fill.
They are not within the jurisdiction of the CDFG. The loss of these two
wetlands would not be of importance.
Based on our findings, we recommend that the cross hatched area on Figure
2 be removed from use. Additionally, we recommend that some sort of a low,
containment berm be placed along the site boundary to prevent runoff from
the storage lots and physically define=the use area such that it does not slowly
expand. With these changes we believe that the proposed uses of the three
properties would not significantly impact the wetlands thereon, and would
have no impact to the high quality willow woodlands on the southern portions
or off-site to the south of the sites.
When more permanent development is proposed in these areas, fencing or other
buffers should be utilized to controt dumping or access of humans and domestic animals
into the wetlands. It is recognized that this will have only an incremental effect, however,
it will provide some level of control on the "out of control" Otay River access situation.
Mr. Mark Watton 3 PSBS #863
8 November 1989
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call at (619) 474-3530.
Sincerely,
Keith W. Merkel
Vice President
LITERATURE CITED
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.
76pp. plus appendices.
stl
Enclosure: Figures 1, 2 and 3
'-~ ( '-~ PSBS'#863
Wetland
N
FIGURE 1. WETLAND DELINEATION -- ~&~v'
BEYER BOULEVARD/FAIVRE STREET SITE t"= 1oo'
'-- ( '--' PSBS #863
Wetland
~ Alluvial Fan Scrub ~ Recommended Deletion From Project
N
FIGURE 2. WETLAND DELINEATION --
FAIVRE STREET (gVEST) SITE
PSBS ~863
.i
Wetland
N
FIGURE 3. WETLAND DELINEATION --
MACE STREET SITE r
84 EAST J STREET ° CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 619 425-9600
DR JOS[PH D. CUMMINGS
OPALFULLER
SHARON GILES
JUDY~HULENBERG
F~NKA. TARANTINO September 13, 1989 SE~ 18 1989
ROBERTJMcGARTHY
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No. IS-90-7M
Applicant: H. G. Fenton Material Company
Location: South end of Mace Street
Dear Mr. Reid:
Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are
overcrowded 'and the District has added 19 relocatable
classrooms over the past two years. Six more were installed
this fall at schools in the western portion of the District
to assist in meeting growth demands.
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 Plannin9
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 691-5553
September 19, 1989
SEP 2 2 1989
Mr. Douglas Reid
Environment Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: Is-g0-7M/IS-90-gM
H. G. Fenton Matertal Company
The above subject project will not cause a significant
environmental impact to the Sweetwater Union High School District.
If any habital structures are installed on a temporary basis,
i.e., trailer units, than payment of school fees ls not required.
The units would fall under the catagory of Temporary Occupancy
Permits (TOPS). Should there be construction of permanent
structures on-site, then payment of fees is required.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 691-
5553.
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
ROUTING FORM
:,~
DATE: September 8, 1989
TT~.' Ken Larson, Building & Housing SEP 8 1589
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff
Swanson,
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City. Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
/~ /~: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: F~lApplication for Initial Study (IS- 90-7M /FA- 437 /DP 691 .)
~--lCheckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
I--]Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
~]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary use of 1.4 acre site
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific uses are subject to staff review.
Location:
south end of Mace Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City. Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: [~]Application for Initial Study (IS- 90-7M /FA- 437 /DP 691- ~)
n-]Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
n-lReview of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP .)
[~]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR- .)
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary use of 1.4 acre site
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific uses are subject to staff review.
Location:
south end of Mace Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by. 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date ~.~ ;gL Person
,.~.'., k~'~~- ,~,.., Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City. Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Plannin
George Krempl, ~lanning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS- 90-7M /FA- 437 /DP 691 )
r-lCheckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
n-lReview of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP )
I-]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- )
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary use of 1.4 acre site
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific uses are subject to staff review.
Location:
south end of Mace Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by. 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
~? / / ~ ,'.?? ,' ~:~'~:~ ~ "~ "~ '
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 8, 1989
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Current Planning
Advance Planning
George Krempl, Planning Director
Other
FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: ~]Application for Initial Study (IS- 90-7M /FA-__437/DP 691' )
[-]Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- /DP )
[--1Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP
[]]Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- /ERR-
The project consists of:
Involves a Master Conditional Use Permit for temporary use of 1.4 acre site
including vehicle parking and storage, equipment storage and building material
storage. Specific uses are subject to staff review.
Location:
south end of Mace Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 9-15-89
Please submit all time incurred for this document below:
Date Person Time
EN 4 (Rev. 7/89)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
iPLICANT'SSTATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL
APPLICATIONS
ICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
MMISSION 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. H.G. Fenton Material Company
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
H.G. Fenton Material Company
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.
E.F. Hunte
Western Salt Company
3. If any person identified pursuant to {Il above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes Noxx If yes, please indicate person(s)
[soc_~_~_i_~lPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership,.joint venture, association,
club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or comb~ation acting as a unit."
{NOTE: Attach additiona, pages as necessary~J~F~ ~ /// : ~://~
zSignature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P Br~lc~ t~arren
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
7. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCM-90-18: Consideration of Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Amendment for
Rancho del Re¥ SPA I to convert
parcel R-11a from 154 duplex units
to 106 sinale family units
(b) PCS-90-14: Consideration of Tentative
Residential Subdivision MaD for
Rancho del Re¥ Phase 5. Unit 1. Lot
77, Chula Vista Tract 90-14 located
on the north side of Rancho del Re¥
Parkway at Paseo Ranchero
I. BACKGROUND
This item consists of two separate but related proposals on
the same parcel. The first proposal, PCM-90-18, is a SPA
Amendment to convert parcel R-11a from 154 duplex units to 106
single family lots and two open space lots in the Rancho del
Rey SPA I area. The second proposal, PCS-90-14, entails a 108
lot subdivision on this parcel. The project encompasses a
41.5 acre area and represents the final subdivision of land
within the SPA I area.
The proposed subdivision is located in the eastern portion of
the City of Chula Vista, east of 1-805. The project is
bounded on the north by the north leg of Rice Canyon, on the
south and east by Rancho del Rey Parkway and on the west by
the elementary school site within SPA I. The city has
previously adopted EIR 87-1 covering the Rancho del Rey SPA
I area, including the area to be subdivided. Based on the
previous EIR 87-1 and the approval of SPA I, this site has
already been graded and that grading would accomodate this
proposed development.
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Re-adopt the CEQA Findings for Rancho del Rey SPA I
contained in Attachment #1; and
B. Re-adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the Rancho del Rey SPA I area as contained in Attachment
#2; and
C. Adopt a motion recommending that the city Council revise
the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I, as
depicted in Exhibit #1 based on the Findings and subject
to the Conditions contained in this report; and
1
city Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
D. Direct staff to revise the Design Guidelines as included
in this report as Attachment #3; and
E. Based upon the Findings and Conditions in Attachment #4,
adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve
the subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Phase 5, Unit 1,
Lot 77.
III. DISCUSSION
SPA I Plan Amendment
The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan was approved by the city
Council in 1985 and required the preparation and approval of
Sectional Planning Area plans before subdivision maps and site
plans are considered. The Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan and
tentative maps were approved by the City Council in December
of 1987. As of June 25, 1990, there have been building
permits issued for 1,050 dwelling units in Rancho del Rey.
Permits for an additional 245 dwelling units are expected by
the end of the year.
The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan contains both general and
specific criteria for the implementation of sectional plans.
It also permits deviations when more detailed planning
justifies it. The area proposed for amendment is shown as
Residential, 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre on the E1 Rancho
del Rey Specific Plan. The SPA I plan designates the area as
a Residential Planned Concept (RP) district. Within the RP
district, both single family attached and detached units are
allowed uses. The proposed amendment, converting parcel R-
lla from 154 duplex units to 106 single family units, is
consistent with both the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
density range and the SPA I land use district. The housing
type in SPA I remains a mixture of single family estate,
standard and small lots and townhome/multi unit products. The
following table outlines the present and proposed dwelling
unit mixture within SPA I.
2
RESIDENTIAL T^,~E~
I "-~ ~ s~-oo,.. 9., ~
~ R-11a ~ ~A-~ Cott~ 2Z4 6.S
[ R-11b ] ~~ 12.. 7.1
J [ R-12 ] ~A-To~ 15.0 1~
L R-,~ j ~.~Y 5.6 15~
[ R-~ ] ~ ~ ~"~
[ ~15 J ~ 2~ 17.7
~Tot~ ~ 7~
N
5[TE UTZLZZATZON PLAN EES[DENTZAL ~ TABLE
LAND USE TABLE
NO SC~E
LE~E~-McIN~RE AND ASSOC~TES
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
General Lotting of the Area
This area "wraps around" the elementary school site on the
inside of the Rancho del Rey Parkway loop road. The proposed
41.5 acre subdivision will result in two open space lots and
106 single family dwelling units. The open space lots will
be south of the main leg of Rice Canyon and adjacent to Rancho
del Rey Parkway. The residential lots designed for this area
will accommodate the "wide and shallow" product type. The
average lot size will be 6,840 square feet, the minimum lot
size will be 5,190 square feet, and the minimum pad size is
set at 5,040 square feet. Anticipated housing sizes are
between 1,800 square feet and 2,300 square feet. Each lot
will maintain a minimum useable rear yard area of 500 square
feet.
The main street through the subdivision, Avenida Bisquay, has
been realigned to discourage through traffic to the elementary
school site and to Rancho del Rey Parkway. The parcel design
includes three cul-de-sacs which terminate in open space
views.
Phasing
This area is Phase 5, Unit 1 of the Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan. The applicant is obligated to complete the various
public improvements outlined in the Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP) that pertain to Phase 5 development.
Plans are currently being processed for Rancho del Rey SPA
III, the final SPA in Rancho del Rey. As part of SPA III
approval, the applicant will be required to comprehensively
update the PFFP for the entire Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
area. Since this subdivision represents a small portion of
the overall plan and results in a fewer number of units than
originally approved with SPA I, it was determined the changes
to the PFFP could be made with the comprehensive update
required with SPA III.
Low and Moderate Income Housing
The Housing Element of the Chula vista General Plan requires
that each project over 50 units in size provide at least 10%
of the total dwelling units for low and moderate income
families. Because this condition was implemented for the
entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, the condition
contained in this subdivision map (Condition # 3 Planning)
refers to the entire specific plan and permits compliance with
4
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
that housing requirement taking into consideration possible
past implementation.
Circulation and Street Improvements
Approval of this subdivision involves a variety of on-site and
off-site street improvements. The on-site street improvements
listed in the conditions of approval are consistent with the
Circulation Element of the General Plan and conform to the
City standards for streets. The off-site street improvements
are documented in the Public Facilities Financing Plan for SPA
I and are tied to phases of development. As indicated above
in the Phasing section, the PFFP will be comprehensively
updated as a requirement of SPA III and will incorporate any
minor changes necessitated by this re-subdivision of Lot 77.
Other Required Facilities
This being a re-subdivision of Lot 77 of SPA I resulting in
fewer dwelling units, other required facilities and fees have
already been considered with previous approvals for SPA I.
SPA I made provisions for a fire station and fire training
facility, a library site, an elementary school and park land.
Under the old Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) in effect
during the original consideration for 154 duplex units in this
area, 0.77 acres of parkland was required. With 106 single
family dwelling units in the area, subject to the new PLDO,
approximately 1.03 acres of parkland would be required. Even
with the new PLDO requirements, the park acreage dedicated in
SPA I compensates for this 0.26 difference in park acreage.
Desiqn Guidelines
As discussed and depicted in the attached description of
parcel R-11a and Design Criteria Summary ( Attachment # 3),
special landscaping and fencing will be used at important
interfaces such as the intersection of Paseo Ranchero and
Rancho del Rey Parkway, along Rancho del Rey Parkway, where
lots abut the school site and along the canyon edge. Other
general landscaping requirements are found in the existing SPA
I Design Guidelines and will be comprehensively updated with
the SPA III guidelines currently being processed.
In addition, the applicant intends to install xeriscape
landscaping in the front yards of all units. Xeriscape
landscaping uses drought resistant plants and reduces the use
of water.
5
city Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
IV. SPA AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Rancho del Rey SPA I Ammendment (PCM-90-18) is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final lot and street design shown within the SPA Plan
for the remaining residential areas may be modified by
the Planning Commission and City Council during tentative
subdivision map consideration.
2. The Public Facilities Financing Plan, the Transportation
Phasing Plan and the conditions contained therein will
further govern the subsequent approval of any tentative
maps or other projects within SPA I.
6
city Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 11, 1990
V. SPA AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE P~%NCHO DEL REY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN OF THE PC ZONE AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Rancho del Rey Planning Area Plan reflects the land
uses, circulation system, open space and recreational
uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Rancho
del Rey General Development Plan since it is within the
Specific Plan density range of 4 to 6 dwelling units per
acre.
2. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE
THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA Plan and the Public Facilities Financing Plan
contain provisions and requirements to ensure the
orderly, phased development of the project. The Public
Facilities Financing Plan respondes not only to the
improvements required because of SPA I, but also the
regional facilities needed to serve this project. The
conversion of Parcel R-11a from duplex to single family
units results in a lesser total number of dwelling units
and therefore, no change in the sequential development
of the Sectional Planning Area.
3. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
All of the land uses within Rancho del Rey SPA I have
taken into consideration existing land use and
topographical constraints in order to protect those
features and areas from adverse intrusion. The
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reviewed not
only the development contained within SPA I but also the
offsite impacts to ensure that all impacts generated by
the project would be responded to in a manner not
detrimental to existing uses. The conversion from 154
duplex units to 106 single family units will not have an
adverse affect on the surrounding land uses.
7
ATTACHMENT # 1
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS
EIR-87-1 RANCHO DEL REY SPA I
RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) I PLAN
EIR-87-1
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
AND SECTION 15091 OF TITLE 14
OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
October 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
$~CT~O~ ~
1 BACKGROUND 1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
3 INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 6
4 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE M_FFIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANT
LEVELS ?
1. Landform/Aesthetics (4B) 7
2. Hydrology/Water Quality (4E) 8
3. Traffic CL*ulation and Access (4F) 11
4. Noise (4H) 13
5 IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO AN
INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL 1 $
I. Biological Resources (4C) 15
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
I Rancho del Rey Spa I Comparison of Original and Revised
Projects 4
I. BACKGROUND
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista that the City
shall not approve a project if it would result in a significant environmental impact if
it is feasible to avoid or substantially lessen that effect. Only when there are
specific economic, social or technical reasons which make it infeasible to mitigate
an impact, can a project with significant impact be approved.
Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
potentially significant environmental impacts, one of the following findings must be
1. Changes or altemadves have been required in, or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR, or
2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency, or
3: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Rancho del Rey Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) I Plan (City of Chula Vista #EIR-87-1) based on the EIR text
and addendum, and all documents, maps, and illustrations included in the public
record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The discretionary actions required by the City of Chula Vista for this project include
approval of the proposed Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan (as revised October 1987),
development regulations, tentative maps and revegetation plan; finalization of the
proposed Facilities Financing Plan; and consideration of specific projects by the
Design Review Committee. Other agencies which have discretionary review
authority over this project include: (1) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
require a Notice of Intent to Discharge permit in accordance with Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act; and (2) the California Depaatment of Fish and Game will require a
Su:eambed Alteration Agreement in accordance with Section 1603 of the California
Fish and Game Code.
The Rancho del Rey SPA I project site consists of 808.6 acres located in the eastern
portion of the City of Chula Vista, east of Interstate 805. The project site is
essentially undeveloped at this time, with existing improvements limited to a
number of unimproved din roads and two SDG&E transmission lines. The project
site is bounded ~n the north and east by Otay Lakes Road; development along this
roadway consists primarily of residential land uses with a few institutional and
commercial land uses. To the south is additional residential and commercial
development along East H Street. Residential development borders the site to the
west.
The original Rancho del Rey development was to involve the construction of 982
single-family units and 1219 multi-family units in a variety of density categories on
305.1 acres. Non-residential uses, including an employment park (84.5 acres),
community facilities (5.6 acres), neighborhood and community parks (55.7 acres),
a school site (12.6 acres), open space (272.6 acres) and a circulation system (72.5
acres), were proposed on the remaining 503.5 acres. The original proposal
incorporated density transfers among residential density categories within the
project site; the concept of such transfers was introduced in the El Rancho del Ray
Specific Plan to allow for site specific adjustments in residential densities as plans
were ret'med. The density transfers proposed in the original SPA I Plan did not
result in an overall increase in the number of residential units nor did it result in any
transfer of units into or out of the SPA I Plan area.
2
In response to public review of the draft Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan EIR and in
conjunction with City of Chula Vista staff recommendations, the applicant
submitted a revised project design. The revised plan retains the majority of the
elements of the original plan, including the circulation pattern and the conceptual
grading plan; additionally, with the exception of two of the parcels, the land use
designations and configurations across the site remain the same. The total number
of residential units on the project site would remain the same; however, under the
revised plan the number of single-family "cottage" units would be increased by 90,
with a corresponding decrease in the number of multi-family (i.e., duplex) units.
The following table compares the original Rancho del Rey SPA I plan and the
revised SPA I plan.
3
III. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The final EIR for the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan concluded that the project would
not have any significant adverse impacts in the following areas (numbers refer to
the section of the EIR where the issue is discussed):
Land Use (4A)
Geology/Soils (4D)
Fiscal Analysis (4G)
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (4I)
Public Facilities and Services (4J)
Water Availability (4J1)
Sewer Services (4J2)
School (4J3)
Fire Protection (434)
IV. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANT
LEVELS
1. Landform/Aesthedcs (4B)
Development of the project site under the adopted Specific Plan would require
substantial landform alteration, including cutting of the ridge areas and filling in the
iower elevations (including some tributary canyons to the primary onsite
drainageways). The preservation of the majority of the north leg of Rice Canyon as
a natural open space and recreational area as initially proposed in the E1 Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan is an important landform/aesthetic consideration which has been
incorporated into the SPA I Plan. Additionally, recommendations of the City's
Scenic Highway Element regarding open space and special design considerations
for the Otay Lakes Road and East "H" S~reet corridors have been incorporated into
the SPA I Plan.
Findings
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise
being implemented which mitigate this significant environmental effect, as
follows. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval for
final grading, landscaping and design plans for the project.
1) All graded areas on the site will be contoured to blend with the natural
onsite landform. Contouring will include both horizontal and vertical
rounding of manufactured slopes complemented with the incorporation of
variable slope ratios. Maintenance of manufactured slopes in excess of 10
feet in height is to be provided by an Open Space Maintenance District.
2) A conceptual landscape plan has been developed which addresses all
graded areas on the project site, with special provisions for thirteen
different landscape types, including: parks, major entryways, accent
areas, arterials, the loop road, parkways, slopes, naturalized areas,
buffers/~ansition areas, screening of the employment center, residential
and commercial areas, fuel modification zone (i.e., adjacent to open space
areas), and natural open space (i.e., preservation and enhancement of
7
existing plantings according to the fipaxian revegetafion plan which is
being prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California Department of Fish and Game). Landscaping will provide
erosion control, visual screening and enhancement of development areas,
and enhancement of existing and future travelways. Maintenance of
landscaped areas is to be the responsibility of property owners (for their
ownership), the Homeowner Association (for common areas) or the
designated public agency (either the City or a special district for parks,
parkways and natural open space areas).
3) Special recommendations for fencing, signing, parking facilities and street
furniture (i.e., f'~re hydrants, post boxes, bus benches, utility company
boxes, traffic control boxes and sprinkler control boxes) are presented in
the SPA I Plan and discussed in the EIR. Designs for lighting are to be
reviewed by the City of Chula Vista on a project-by-project basis.
4) Recommendations for areas which are visible from the East "H" Street
scenic corridor, including landscaped corridors, noise barriers (i.e., walls
and berms) and residential structural designs, are presented in the SPA I
Plan. Additionally, specialized design studies are recommended for the
employment center.
5) Residences adjacent to the SDG&E easement are to be properly oriented
and landscaped to buffer views of transmission lines and towers within
the easement.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final
EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above.
2. Hydrology/Water Quality (4E)
The project site incorporates portions of the Rice Canyon and Otay Lakes Road
drainage basins. Stormwater facilities within these two basins have been designed
to accommodate project flows up to and including a 100-year flow event. While no
known, specific, quantitative investigation has been conducted to address water
quality considerations on the project site, the proposed project would be expected to
generally decrease water quality both onsite and downstream due to increases in
runoff and the accompanying potentigl for erosion in combination with the
increased discharge of contaminants which is associated with urban development in
the watershed.
F~.nding~
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise
being implemented which mitigate this potentially significant environmental
effect, as follows. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of
approval for final engineering and design plans for the project.
1) The onsite storm drainage system has been designed to provide erosion
control and to minimize impacts to biological resources in onsite canyons.
Final improvement plans for the system will be subject to the approval of
the City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works. Several mitigation
measures were incorporated into the conceptual design of this system
which will be detailed in f'mal improvement plans for the system,
including:
a) A maintenance district will be established for the proposed sediment
basin which will be located offsite near the southwest comer of the
project site. The maintenance district will be responsible for
delineating the appropriate fees, schedules and responsibilities for
maintaining this structure.
b) All onsite drainage facilities, including brow ditches, storm drains and
culverts, should be regularly maintained to insure proper working
condition. Maintenance of these facilities shall be the responsibility of
the property owner or a special district established to maintain onsite
c) The fmal design and location of all drainage facilities in the north leg
of Rice Canyon will be inspected by a qualified biologist.
Construction of these facilities shall be concurrent with all other
proposed construction in the canyon (e.g., paths, trenches for other
infrastructure, etc.). All access roads and trails within the canyons
shall be constructed of pervious materials to reduce runoff.
d) Adequate surface drainage and erosion control measures shall be
provided on all graded areas, including building pads, manufactured
slopes, temporary and permanent roadways, and construction staging
areas; these measures shall be implemented according to the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
e) The use of cohesionless soils on slopes will be avoided to decrease
erosion potential.
f) Graded pads shall be designed according to standard engineering
practice to collect and direct surface waters away from proposed
structures to approved drainage facilities. Drainage patterns approved
the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of
proposed structures.
g) Subdrain specifications shall conform to the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. Conceptual subdrain locations shall be
indicated on the approved grading plan. Subdrain installation shall be
reviewed by the engineering geologist prior to fill placement. Final
locations of subdrain outlets shall be mapped at the completion of
installation on as-built plans.
h) Drainage requirements of fill proposed to be placed in alluvial areas
shall be implemented according to the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant; construction shall proceed in these areas
according to these requirements. Drainage structures shall be utilized
behind stabilization fills; the locations and specifications of these
snmctures shall conform to the recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant. Further, if deemed necessary by the geotechnical
consultant during grading operations, drainage structures shall also be
utilized at contacts between permeable and nonpermeable geologic
units.
10
i) The revegetation plan which is to be prepared for the project shall
provide erosion control measures for all graded areas; all graded areas
shall be revegetated as quickly as possible following grading to
minimize potential erosion. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by
a landscape architect and shall have input where appropriate from the
project biologist.
2) As proposed in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan candidate findings,
erosion control in Rice Canyon will be achieved by the preparation and
implementation of a stream channel improvement program to repair
existing erosion damage in the canyon and to minimize the potential for
future damage. This program is included in the Rancho del Rey SPA I
Canyon Study, which is a part of the SPA Plan. Recommended measures
will be implemented in conjunction with the consm~ction of infrastructure
and trails in the onsite canyon areas.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final
EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above.
3. Traffic Circulation and Access (4F)
Vehicular use associated with the proposed project is projected to result in 41,054
average daffy automobile a-ips (ADT) to be added to the local and regional roadway
networks. Potentially significant traffic congestion and access impacts within the
project vicinity are expected as a result of this increase the total number of regional
trips, especially along East "H" Street and at the "H" Street/Interstate 805
intemhange.
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise
being implemented which mitigate this significant environmental effect, as
follows:
11
1) A cap on the number of trips on East "H" Street has been placed to ensure
that this roadway does not reach level of service (LOS) D during buildout
of the project. The City will monitor the total number of trips on East "H"
Street east of Hidden Vista Drive to determine when this roadway segment
is projected to reach capacity (i.e., LOS C) based on total ADTs (i.e.,
Total ADTs include ADTs generated by the SPA I project plus ADTs
generated by other developments which utilize the subject section of East
"H" Street. The project applicant and City staff have agreed on a measure
to limit the total number of ADTs generated by the SPA I project: the
residential portion of the project will be built according to the phasing
discussed in the EIR and the traffic analysis but the employment center
will be phased so that 10,000 of the ADTs which are projected to be
generated by the employment center will be "held in reserve" until
guarantees regarding the construction of Route 125 are established.
Based on assumptions regarding growth in the vicinity of the project site
which are discussed in the lransportation analysis prepared for the Rancho
del Rey SPA I project EIR, only one-half of the total square footage of
commercial and industrial buildings proposed for the employment center
will be constructed prior to the time that Route 125 construction
guarantees are established. While the cap has been defined for the
purposes of the EIR based on the referenced analysis, the uncertainty of
development in the vicinity of the project site indicates that the established
cap could be reached at any phase of SPA I development.).
The project applicant, as well as other applicants in the vicinity, will
contribute funds to the City to offset the costs of the monitoring efforts.
Construction of the proposed SPA I project will proceed as planned until
total ADTs projected for the subject section of East "H" Street reach
56,500 ADT. At that point, no more building permits will be issued for
the Rancho del Rey SPA I project until guarantees regarding the
construction of Route 125 are established to the satisfaction of the City
Department of Public Works. (NOTE: The precise corridor for Route
125 has not been determined but is located east of the SPA I site.).
2) Traffic flows from the employment center shall be evenly distributed onto
East "H" Street through the two access points. To ensure that this occurs,
12
development shall be distributed equally throughout the employment
center in the initial construction phase. As a result, the intersections of the
onsite roadway network with East "H" Street and the travel lanes of East
"H" Street will be equally affected by the projected trips and improved
traffic flows in the East "H" Street vicinity will be rnalrltained.
3) The applicant will contribute towards a number of improvements to
roadway segments, intersections and interchanges in the project vicinity,
as defined in the Findings for the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and in
the Rancho del Rey SPA I EIR traffic analysis. The recommended
improvements and the thresholds for the construction of these
improvements are detailed in Table 4-F-4 of the EIR.
4) The applicant will construct the onsite roadway network to the
specifications of the City of Chula Vista Depa~ t~ent of Public Works.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final
EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above.
4. Noise (4H)
Noise modeling of future site conditions indicated that noise levels at the facades of
buildings adjacent to portions of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road would
exceed the City of Chula Vista guidelines for noise levels adjacent to residential land
uses (i.e., 65 dB(A) CNEL), ranging between 74 dB(A) CNEL along East "H"
Street to 75 dB(A) CNEL along Otay Lakes Road. Additionally, although no site
plans are available for the multi-family residential parcel south of East "H" Street, it
would be expected that these residences could be exposed to similar noise levels,
depending on the setbacks employed in the final site design. Finally, the park
parcel designated P-2 in the SPA I Plan (which is proposed to be located at the
intersection of entrance Road "C" at East "H" Street) w.ould potentially be exposed
to noise levels exceeding 65 dB(A) CNEL.
13
Findines
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise
being implemented which mitigate this significant environmental effect, in
I) Exterior noise levels for residential areas will be mitigated by the
construction of noise attenuation barriers (i.e., a combination of walls and
berms) along the portions of East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road which
will be subject to noise levels exceeding 65 dB(A) CNEL. The exact
heights and locations of these noise attentuation barriers is discussed in
the EIR and will be indicated on the final tentative maps for the project.
2) In compliance with Title 25, acoustical studies will be performed for all
residences exposed to noise levels of 60 dB(A) CNEL or greater to ensure
that appropriate design and building construction measures have been
incorporated to mitigate interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL or less.
These measures will be indicated on the final tentative maps for the
project.
3) Additional acoustical analyses may be required for the park and the multi-
family residential area south of East "H" Street upon submittal of the
detailed development plans for these two parcels. Appropriate mitigation
measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval of the tentative
maps for these parcels.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or
substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final
EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above.
14
V. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO AN
INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Biological Resources (4C)
A prior investigation of the biological resources on the Rancho del Rey SPA I site
prepared in conjunction with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan EIR identified
significant unmitigable impacts to biological resources related to development of the
proposed project. On the basis of the findings included in that report, the SPA I
Plan incorporated measures designed to reduce identified impacts. Although these
measures do not reduce biological impacts to the project site to below a level of
significance, complete and proper implementation of all measures as addressed
below will reduce impacts from project implementation to an acceptable level.
Additional impacts to onsite biological resources will occur from onsite stream
channel and canyon floor modifications related to implementation of erosion control
measures and installation of onsite storm and sanitary sewers in Rice Canyon.
These modifications include installation of drainage structures, construction of a
maintenance road, installation of pipes, and installation of wiers in the stream
channel to reduce water velocity and decrease bank erosion.
Findings
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise
being implemented which mitigate this significant environmental effect, in
1) Consolidation of open space in the main canyon systems.
2) Implementation of specific measures to prevent impacts to sensitive
species.
3) Development of a landscape plan to restore natural habitat in disturbed
areas.
IS
4) Reduction of impacts to wetland habitat through the development of a
wetland enhancement and mitigation program in cooperation with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The riparian mitigation program will
address the most sensitive methods for implementation of erosion
control measures and installation of onsite storm and sanitary sewers in
Rice Canyon.
B. Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives which would eliminate or
substantially lessen the environmental effects and were not incorporated into
the project were found infeasible, based on economic, social, and other
considerations as set forth in the final EIR and listed below.
1) Development of the project site in an economically feasible manner
would involve some loss of biological habitat. The preservation of all,
or even a substantial portion, of the biological resources on the project
site would not allow development to occur according to the goals
expressed in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan or the City of Chula
Vista General Plan.
2) Development of the site in a way which Would provide substantially
more open space could result in inefficient infrastructural design and
would not respond to the current and forecasted housing market needs.
3) The preservation of the biological resources on the project site would
preclude the use of the site to meet current and projected needs for
housing, employment and recreational opportunities.
4) The preservation of the biological resources on the project site would
preclude the project applicant from achieving the goals of developing the
project site.
5) The preservation of the biological resources on the project site would
preclude the City of Chula Vista from benefitting from the projected
increase in net revenues which would accrue to the City from the
development of the Rancho del Rey SPA I project.
16
C. All significant biological environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project changes
and mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated in the
project ss set forth above. There remain some significant biological impacts.
D. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been reduced to an
acceptable level when balanced against facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
17
ATTACHMENT # 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
EIR-87-1 RANCHO DEL REY SPA I
ATTACHMENT # 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
EIR-87-1 RANCHO DEL REY SPA I
S1ATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(TITLE 14 CAC SECTION 15093)
EIR-87-1, Rancho del Rey SPA-1
This Statement shall constitute the specific benefits associated with the approval of
the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area I Plan ("SPA") and associated maps and
permits (collectively, "Project") even though Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") No.
87-1, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, identified
significant, unmitigated impacts to biological resources upon development of the
Project.
The identification in the EIR of significant impacts to biology resulted in design
modifications to the Project in an effort to reduce the adverse impacts. These
modifications included.the consolidation of open space in the main canyon systems,
specific measures to prevent impacts to sensitive species, programs to restore natural
habitat to disturbed areas and the reduction of impacts to wetlands habitat through
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. These measures reduced the adverse impacts, even though the resulting
impact remains unmitigated.
The Project proposes the construction of a wide range of housing types which will
provide opportunities for home ownership and shelter for the entire economic
spectrum. The proposed housing will be located in an area of Chula Vista served by a
public transit system and access to the freeway system. This location will provide
residents with access to a variety of employment opportunities. This increase in the
range of housing types is a substantial benefit to the City of Chula Vista.
The Project includes the development of an employment park which will provide a
variety of employment opportunities for residents. The construction and operation of
the employment park wilt generate significant revenues in the form of taxes for the
benefit of the City of Chula Vista. These revenues will exceed the operating costs
associated with Project development.
The location of the Project will result in the construction of significant roads and
other infrastructure which will serve existing development to the east. This "infill"
development of vacant land will result in construction of needed public facilities
which would otherwise be delayed.
The General Development Plan is consistent with the original intent and purpose of the
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and is therefore, in conformance with the provisions of
the General Plan. The General Development Plan proposes minor modifications in the
circulation system that enhance the visual appearance of the project.
In addition, housing units will be served to buy significant amounts of a natural and
manmade open space and park systems. All public facilities have been responded to and
the needs generated by this project have been met by the standards and requirements
stipulated in the public facilities plan and financing analysis.
The General Development Plan proposes the maintenance and enhancement of two major
legs of Rice Canyon which traverse the site. In addition to this preservation, the
plan provides for active recreational needs of the residents of this project by
providing two neighborhood parks, a community park, and a system of trails that will
connect all major uses to these open space areas. Master Plans will be required prior
to the development of these parks to ensure the high quality development of these
parks as well as protection of adjacent areas.
WPC 4449P
ATTACHMENT # 3
DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR PARCEL R-11a - RANCHO DEL REY SPA I
Parcel R-11a: This parcel is located at the eastern end of
the middle ridge and "wraps around" the elementary school
site. Specialized fencing, six foot high masonry with
stucco finish, which follows the community theme should be
used to separate the two uses.
The southern edge of the parcel is the visual terminus of a
main entry road from East "H" Street. Contour grading and
special landscape treatments should be used at the intersec-
tion of the loop road and entry road. In addition, the
fencing above this intersection and along the loop road
should present a unified, high quality aesthetic statement.
The community theme fencing should extend along the school
site edge adjoining Rancho del Rey Parkway as well as the
residential edge. Rear and side elevations of homes visible
from the loop road should also receive special attention.
The parcel design includes three cul-de-sacs which terminate
with open space views. These open ends provide increased
visual access into open areas from internal streets and an
"expansive" terminus to the cul-de-sacs. This design fea-
ture increases the sense of spaciousness in this development
area. Community theme fencing should extend across each
cul-de-sac, appearing as a continuous design element when
viewed from within or across the canyon.
Parcel R-11a
Design Criteria S,,mm~ry
Product: Cottage SFD
Minimum Pad Size: 5,040 sf
Average Lot Size: 6,840 sf
Special Design Issues
Grading: School site interface
Entry: Major community entry from East."H" Street
Fencing: Views to and from canyon; School site separation; Loop
road edge
Edges: Canyon; Loop Road; School site
Landscaping: Major community entry terminus; Edge conditions
(06/19/90) 97
HOUSING TYPE: SFD
EXAMPLE LOT SIZE: 63'x80'
Maximized
Building Envelope
Panhandle Lot
Open Space Fencing
Rear and Sideyard Fencing
Cul-De-Sac Fencing
Open Space Fencing
Elementary School Site
ATTACHMENT # 4
RANCHO DEL REY PHASE 5 UNIT 1 LOT 77
CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-14
I. TENTATIVE MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Engineering Department Conditions
1. The owner shall be responsible for the construction
of public improvements of all streets shown on the
Tentative Map within the subdivision. Public
improvements required shall include, but not be
limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb,
gutter and sidewalk, driveway approaches, street
lights, traffic signs, street trees, fire hydrants,
sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities.
2. A minimum of one on-street parking space (20 feet)
shall be provided along the frontage of each
residential lot. However, in cases where the
minimum on-street parking space requirement cannot
be met, credit shall be given for surplus on-street
parking in front of nearby lots upon approval of the
City Engineer. With approval of the City Engineer,
residential lots which provide three or more off-
street parking spaces shall be exempt.
3. Minimum 50 foot tangent length is required on all
cul-de-sacs including Seville Court. Guard rails
shall be constructed on cul-de-sacs that are located
adjacent to slopes as required by the City Engineer.
4. All grading and improvements shall be done in
conformance with the Rancho del Rey Design
Guidelines.
5. All streets shown on the Tentative Map within the
subdivision shall be dedicated for public use.
Design of the said streets shall meet all City
standards for public streets.
6. Avenida Bisquay shall be designed to conform with
City Standards for Class III Collector Street. A
vehicle turnout lane 10 feet wide shall be provided
from Rancho del Rey Parkway to Avenida de la Barca,
along the school site frontage unless the School
District determines that the student drop-off/pick-
up point will not be located on Avenida Bisquay.
7. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the
City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map.
An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be
required as part of the grading plans.
In the event that any fault zones are found during
grading of the site, a field investigation shall be
required (by a registered geologist) and any
subsequent recommendations incorporated into the
project design.
8. Slope rounding shall be in accordance with Chula
Vista Design Standards. Theoretical hinge point of
slopes in relationship to property lines shall be
in accordance with said design standard 26 and 27
or as approved by the City Engineer.
9. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain
structures including inlet and outlet structures as
required by the City Engineer.
10. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the
City wherein he holds the City harmless from any
liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow
of drainage resulting from this project.
11. The developer shall permit all franchised cable
television companies equal opportunity to place
conduit to and provide cable television service for
each lot within the subdivision. However, developer
shall restrict access to the conduit to only those
franchised cable television companies who are and
remain in compliance with all of the terms and
conditions of the franchise and which are in further
compliance with all other rules, regulations,
ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting
the operation of cable television companies as same
may have been, or may from time to time be, issued
by the City of Chula Vista.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the
Cable Company to insure that compliance with this
condition is met. Said agreement shall be approved
by the City Attorney prior to final map approval.
12. The developer shall comply with all relevant
Federal, State and local regulations, including the
Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible
for providing all required testing and documentation
to demonstrate said compliance as required by the
City Engineer.
13. The developer shall grant to the City street tree
planting and maintenance easements along all public
streets within the Subdivision as required by the
City Engineer.
14. The subject property is within the boundaries of
Assessment District 87-1 (East "H" Street Assessment
District). The developer shall agree to not protest
formation of the Assessment District 87-1 and to not
protest inclusion of the subject property in said
District. The developer shall be responsible for
all costs associated with reapportionment of
assessments as a result of the subdivision of lands
within the project boundary.
15. The developer shall be responsible for repayment of
construction costs for the Rice Canyon Sewer in
accordance with Resolution 11574 until such time as
repayment in accordance with said resolution is
completed.
16. The developer shall submit a study to the City
indicating that the downstream sewer systems are
adequate for the project generated flows. Said
study shall include actual flows plus Rancho del Rey
SPA I and SPA II projected flows. Subject study
shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
Final Map Approval.
17. On the condition that the City shall promptly notify
the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense, the subdivider/applicant
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City,
or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by the Planning Commission, City
Council, or any approval by agents, officers, or
employees with regard to this subdivision.
18. Minimum lot frontages shall be 35 feet unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
19. Off-site cumulative transportation impacts shall be
mitigated to insignificant levels by adhering to the
current East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan
or any future updates thereto.
20. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby
the developer agrees that the City may withhold
building permits for any units in the subject
subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph
Canyon Road, Eastlake Parkway, or East "H" Street
exceed the levels of service identified in the
City's adopted thresholds.
B~ Code Requirements
1. All utilities within the subdivision shall be
undergrounded in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
2. The owner shall pay traffic signal participation
fees prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. The owner shall pay sewer connection fees prior to
the issuance of building permits.
4. The owner shall pay development impact fees prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. The owner shall comply with all applicable sections
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and
the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and
Subdivision Manual.
C. Planning Department Conditions
1. Copies of the proposed CC&Rs for this subdivision
shall be on file with the City.
2. PAD Fees shall be waived or modified as provided in
the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan for
Rancho del Rey. RCT fees and DIF fees shall be paid
in accordance with the applicable regulations. PAD
Fees shall be guaranteed until such time as the City
waives said fees.
3. A low and moderate income housing program, with an
estimated established goal of 5% low and 5%
moderate, shall be implemented subject to the
satisfaction of City's Housing Coordinator. The
entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area shall
be considered when determining satsifaction with
this condition.
4. Development of all parcels shall be in accordance
with the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan, Public
Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis, Design
Guidelines, and PC Development Regulations.
5. Frontage on all lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet
at the right-of-way line except as approved by the
City Engineer. Corner lots shall be a minimum of
60 feet in width. Lots less than 35 feet in width
shall comply with the City's provision for on-site
parking per the R-E, Residential Estate, standards
found in Chapter 19.22, section 19.22.50 of the
code.
6. The developer shall agree to include the subdivision
in the Mello-Roos public facilities district or an
acceptable alternative financing program subject to
the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and
Sweetwater High School Districts.
7. Prior to final map approval, landscape and
irrigation plans, erosion control plans, and
detailed water management guidelines for all
landscape irrigation including all open space lots,m
shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect
and Director of Parks and Recreation. The
landscaping format within the project shall be to
emphasize native, drought resistant plant material.
8. The developer shall install street trees in
accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA Street Tree
Master Plan.
9. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements
within an open space area shall be the
responsibility of the Rancho del Rey Open Space
Maintenance District #10. Lots A and B, including
all walls, are to be part of the Open Space
District.
10. All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-
way shall maintain a minimum width so as to provide
10 feet of landscaping treatment behind the back of
sidewalk.
11. Fencing detail shall be provided for all lots which
back onto the elementary school site, the canyon
edge, Rancho del Rey Parkway and at the cul-de-sac
interface with the open space areas.
12. For walls which are located within the Open Space
Maintenance District, owners of adjoining lots shall
sign a statement when purchasing their homes that
they are aware that the wall is on City property and
that they may not modify or supplement the wall or
encroach onto City property. These restrictions
shall also be reflected in the CC&Rs for each lot.
13. As needed by the City, the developer shall provide
access to open space areas for maintenance and fire
protection. Prior to final map adoption, adequacy
and placement of such access shall be approved by
the City Fire Marshal and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
14. Fire hydrants shall be provided as indicated and
shall be installed, tested and in service prior to
any combustible construction materials placed on-
site.
15. Developer shall provide for clear visual and
physical separations wherever open space district
areas interface with:
privately maintained areas
school district maintained areas
fire department maintained areas
parks division maintained areas
areas maintained by other public agencies
any and all other contiguous properties
16. The developer shall provide infrastructure within
Rancho del Rey Parkway to accommodate the use of
reclaimed Water, when it is available, from the
appropriate district to use such reclaimed water for
parkway landscaping.
17. The developer shall construct all on-site piping
necessary to serve the subdivision, and connect to
the existing water main in Rancho del Rey Parkway.
18. Water service from the Otay Water District's
existing and future water system will be subject to
the District's water allocation program.
19. Prior to final map approval, the property owner
shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
a. The property owner agrees that the City may
withhold building permits for any units in the
subject subdivision if any one of the following
Occur:
1. Regional development threshold limits set
by the East Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan have been reached.
2. Traffic volumes, level of service, public
utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards.
20. The following statement shall be placed on the Final
Map:
"Please be advised that the City of Chula Vista
intends to adopt a Growth Management Element,
Transportation Phasing Program, and other related
growth management implementation programs, which may
regulate the location and timing of development in
the City. The City intends that development of
property included in the Final Map will be subject
to the provisions of these programs. Owners listed
on this map shall be responsible for providing
notification to any purchaser or successor in
interest to any portion of this property of the
City's intent in this regard."
21. Prior to City Council approval of all Final Maps,
compliance with the City's adopted Threshold Policy
must be demonstrated to the statisfaction of the
Director of Planning.
II. TENTATIVE MAP RECOM~4ENDED FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Phase 5 Unit
1 Lot 77, Tract 90-14 is found to be consistent with the
Chula Vista General Plan as adopted by the Chula Vista
City Council based on the following findings:
1. Land Use Element
The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan designates this
area for planned concept residential development at
4 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The unit totals,
the type of housing, and the open space system are
consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
and, therefore, consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan.
2. Circulation Element
All of the on-site and off-site public streets
required to serve the subdivision are consistent
with the circulation element of the Chula Vista
General Plan and the circulation proposed within the
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Those facilities
will be constructed in accordance with the Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
3. Housing Element
A low and moderate income housing program with an
established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate is being
implemented subject to the approval of the City's
housing coordinator. Computation of the
satisfaction of this condition will include the
entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. The
proposed project, while decreasing the total number
of units, remains consistent with the density
designated in the Specific Plan.
4. Parks and Recreation Element
The subdivision will result in fewer units than that
proposed with the original concept of 154 duplex
units. Also, the SPA I plan dedicated additional
parkland beyond the minimum required per the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
5. Public Facilities Element
This project is obligated in the conditions of
approval to provide all on-site and off-site
facilities necessary to serve this project. Other
regional public facilities were included with the
overall SPA I approval.
6. Open Space and Conservation Element
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the
goals and policies of this element. The open space
lots adjacent to Rancho del Rey Parkway and in Rice
Canyon will become part of the Rancho del Rey Open
Space Maintenance District # 10.
7. Safety Element
As discussed in the previous SPA I approvals, the
project site is considered a seismically active
area, although there are no known active faults on
or adjacent to the property. Fire protection
facilities and services needed to serve the project
have been reviewed by the Fire Department.
8. Noise Element
Noise mitigation measures included in the SPA I
environmental Impact Report adequately address the
noise policy of the General Plan. Subsequent to
construction of noise barriers required in SPA I,
interior noise levels of 45 dBA are not expected to
be exceeded. Outside private areas are not expected
to exceed a 65 dBA noise level.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE,tENT
~STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERT"'~ ........... -.. _
)WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
[COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. --~- u,n:K~lF iNTERESTS ~NCALL APPLICATIONS
Fha following information must be disclosed: ~
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
McMilltn Comunities, Inc., National City, CA 92050
..Home Capital Development Croup, a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, ~
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Rancho Del Ray Partnership, a California General Partnership composed of lA and lB above
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
McJ4tllin Comr~untties, Inc: McMtlltn Family Trust-Nacey L. & Vonnte L. McNtllin Trustees (~0%)
Mark O. McMtlltn, Laurie A. Ray & Scott M. McMillin (20% each) Home Capital Development Group; 100% by
Hor~ Feteral Savings & Loans San Diegos r~A -'
3. If any person identified pursuant to il). 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 o~ trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Co~issions, Co~ittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x If yes, please indicate person{s)
[political subdivision or a-~-+~ ........ Z'[~L~'~ ,,,un~?pa~y, u~strict or other
{NOTE. Attach a ' ' ~ ........ ~
dd~t~onal pages as necessary.) ~. ~-- ~
WPC 0701P Signature of applic~/date
A-]lO Ken Baumgartner, Executive V.P.
~rint or type name of applicant
~NCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHmP