HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/05/10 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, May 10, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of April 12, 1989
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: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional
planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known
as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8,
located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road,
between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcrest
Development
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-I: Consideration of the implementation of the
Montgomery Specific Plan for the area which is bounded
by 'L' Street on the north, Broadway on the west,
Oxford on the south, and Fourth Avenue on the east -
City Initiated
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-88-2, General
Plan Update
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-24: Request to construct
a service station at the northwest corner of East 'H'
Street and Otay Lakes Road - UNOCAL Corporation (Continued)
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of May 17, 1989
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional
~lanning area plan and tentative subdivision map knobn
as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula vista Tract B9-8,
located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road
between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcrest
Development
A. BACKGROUND
Woodcrest Development has requested a two-week continuance in order to
finalize certain interface issues with an adjoining property owner. Staff
supports a continuance to the meeting of May 24, 1989, and has notified
the surrounding residents of the change.
B. RECOI4MENDATION
Adopt a motion to continue PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8 to the meeting of
May 24, 1989.
WPC 6209P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 2
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 re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
enaction of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the
attached Exhibit A.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 and C-T (along Broadway) Single family residential and
commercial
South RU29, RS7, C36 (along Broadway) Mixture of multiple family,
single family and commercial
East Predominantly RU29 Apartments, si ngle family,
and duplexes
West C36 and C-C Predominantly commercial
along Broadway
Existing site characteristics.
The project area is almost entirely improved with residential uses and
with commercial development along Broadway. The area between Fifth and
Fourth Avenue is almost entirely improved with single family residential
units while the area west of Fifth Avenue is improved with a mixture of
multiple family residential, duplexes, and single family residential.
Also, within the project area is the Sweetwater High School District
Offices located on the west side of Fifth Avenue between Naples and Oxford
Streets.
General plan.
The Castle Park Area of the Montgomery Specific Plan is designated as
follows:
a. The area along Broadway is designated Mercantile and Office
Commercial.
b. The area just east of the Broadway commercial is designated High
Density Residential (18 to 27 du/ac).
c. The area between Fifth and Fourth Avenue is designated Low/Medium
Density Residential (3 to 6 du/ac).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 3
d. The area west of Fifth Avenue, north of Nickman Street, is designated
Low/Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) while
the area south of Nickman Street, west of Fifth Avenue and north of
Oxford Street, is designated Medium Density Residential (6 to 11
du/ac).
Based on these land use designations, staff is recommending zone
reclassifications consistent with the above described land use
designations. More specifically, that involves:
a. The areas designated High Density Residential would be reclassified
to R-3.
b. The area designated Mercantile and Office Commercial would be
designated C-T-P.
c. The area designated Low/Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 du/ac)
would be designated R-l-7.
d. The area designated Medium Density Residential (6 to 11 du/ac) would
be designated R-2-P.
D. ANALYSIS
There are several factors which support the rezonings described above.
1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by the Chula Vista City
Council on January 12, 1988. These zone reclassifications are
primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. The plan also
goes on to identify the need to preserve the existing single-family
residential character of Montgomery and, further, the need to protect
that single-family character from intrusion of incompatible uses.
These rezonings and the use of the Precise Plan Modifying District on
the commercial parcels will assist in protecting that character.
2. In the case of the area west of Fifth Avenue, south of Moss and along
Wykes and Welton Streets, it is proposed to amend the zones in that
area from RV15 to R-l-7. That reclassification is consistent with
the Montgomery Specific Plan Low/Medium designation and seeks to
preserve the predominant single-family residential character of
area.
3. In all cases except for that described above in number 2, the
proposed zoning is our best attempt to convert adopted County zoning
to the City_ zoning without adversely impacting the development
capability of the properties.
WPC 6177P
RS7 to
MOSS STREET
DEWEY
_~,_ tO
R-1-7
STRI WELTO
KMAN
CLARISS
NAPLES STREF'T
RU29
to
to
RV15 tO R-2-P
QUEEN ANNE DRIVE
RU29 to R-3
(FORD
Castle Park "A" - PART I LETTIERI-MclNTYRE ^.n ASSOCIATES
RV15 NI KMAN
C AR ISS
I
29 R~3
NAPLES S
RU29
RV15 to R-2-P
QUEEN
29 to R-3 o~ ~
~RD os
Castle Park "A' -.~, LETTIERI-MclNTYRE A.O ASSOCIATES
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-89-1 - City-initiated proposal to rezone certain
~erritory generally bounded by "L" Street on the
north, Broadway on the west, Oxford on the south, and
Fourth Avenue on the east, from its City-adopted
1County-zoning} classifications to the City
classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. Th~
proposed specific rezonings, and their precis:
territorial limits are depicted on attachment ExhibiL
The proposed rezonings are confined to a portion of
the Castle Park "A" Subcommunity of Montgomery and are
governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, adopted by
the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988,
under Resolution No. 13413, and on September 13, 1988,
under Resolution No. 13780.
A. BACKGROUND
1. This proposal involves the reclassification of a portion of the
Castle Park "A" Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The
area is generally bounded by "L" Street on the north, Broadway on the
west, Oxford Street on the south, and Fourth Avenue on the east.
Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted
County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows:
C36 to C-T-P (along Broadway)
RU29 to R-3
RU29 to R-l-7
RV15 to R-l-7
RV15 to R-2-P
RS7 to R-l-7
Please refer to Exhibit "A" for precise locations of reclassification
proposal s.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-88-4M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on the
attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator
has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant
environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative
Declaration issued on IS-88-4M.
3. On April 5, 1989, the Montgomery Planning Committee held a public
hearing on this item. By a vote of 7-0, the Committee approved staff
recommendation except that area depicted on Exhibit "B" in which the
Committee recommended a zone change from RVl5 to R-l-7.
ADDENDUM
IS-88-4M
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PART III
May 6, 1988
1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and
the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that
when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required
unless:
a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not
considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration
in the air quality where the project will be located which will
require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or
c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes
available.
Because the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan has been the subject
of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been
drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of
implementation of the plan, a new initial study {IS-88-~M) was required. It
is the conclusion of the initial study that prior envir6~mental review of the
Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88-4M continues to accurately
assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional
information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III.
Previous Project
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in
effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and
diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the
relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General
Plan.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the
proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan
diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential
zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are
constrained ~ the Researc~ and Limited Industrial Use Tvn~ where uses
permitted by ~ne present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities
to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within
Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for
the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford
Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present
deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed
retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as
property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast
corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic
mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis
of issues involving socio-economic, environmental housing, townscape planning
and traffic concerns. '
Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known
as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain
for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial
and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research
and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an
area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted.
Proposed Project
Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special
Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and
Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs
land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater
significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would
consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom
tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations
also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines.
Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision
controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts
and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings
called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be
undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review.
-2-
Analysis.
1. Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is
precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and w~itelands
designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation is required at this time.
2. Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land
uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site.
Those areas include~
a. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential
densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant
land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy
industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited
Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those
uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the
proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities
offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly
characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no
significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing
established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the
Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since
· implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the
requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate
mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
d. Transportation/Access
Both Montgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals
to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area,
chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main
Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenu~
to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude
implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and
engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no
mitigation is required at this point.
-3-
e. Land Form/Topography
The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. F~rther development for single
family residences may include significant alteration of'exist!rig
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
grading and construction permits at t~e project level with attendant
environmental review. Therefore, no Significant ~dverse impacts will
~w.at this point and no mitigation is required pending future
Conclusion
The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in
? t~? Negative Declaration iss.:H ~ ..... ~he same impacts as identified
.~ga~ve Declaration issued o- ~ '~-c~s~-numDer IS-88-4M. Therefor~ +~
II, ma ,, ~aa: number Is-88-4M Mo - --' '":
y also apply to case IS-88 65M ~^ . .... ,~ n~omery Specific Plan
- , ~-: muncgomery apeciric Plan III.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the
same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that
the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City
this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking Council adopt
project. . action on the
L~ D~'REiD
ENVIRO/~MENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 5244P
-4-
" negativ declaration
PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly ~art of
the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987
A. Project Setting
The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square
miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It
lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L"
Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City
Limits on the south.
The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities
which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been
identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical
reference, and geographical place name. - The subcommunities are:
Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay,
and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. {Please see map, Exhibit A.)
Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which
vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial
and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area,
and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial
land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown
in Exhibit B of this report.
Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy
878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses,
single family housing types constitute 522 acres {30%) mobilehomes occupy
1§5 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres {9%) and duplexes constitute
48 acres (3%).
Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted
to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences,
containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome
acreage.
Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within
),lontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial
use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along
Broadway, Main Street and Third Avenue.
city of chula vista planning department CI'~'OF
" environmental review section CHULAVI A
Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of
Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of
Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89%
of all industrially used land in the planning area.
Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area
are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends
to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light
industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts
from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts.
Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches
and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the
planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public
school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools,
two elementary schools, and a district administrative center.
Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9
acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes
buildings for the community center and parking.
The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres
of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning
area is lO0 acres.
There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant,
or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land
are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay,
amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include
151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club
for use as a golf course.)
Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are
suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to
constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or
location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands.
Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within
the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which
contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that
currently permittea by zoning and any physical constraints which limit
permitted uses.
Areas Surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay
to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the
Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of
San Diego to the south.
B. Project Description
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance
currently in effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies
and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of
the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I
and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the
implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon
completion of that document.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under
the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the
plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current
residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land
uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type,
where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy
industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan
document are contained within Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center
for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and
Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition,
present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through
proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space,
as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the
southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed
parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas
pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic,
environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns.'
Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity
known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the
floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street
between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in
conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment
of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are
presently conducted.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically
express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail.
D. Identification of Environmental Effect~
Groundwater/Drainage
There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through
the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay
River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining
into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental
impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of
this report.
1. Telegraph Canyon Creek
The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of
the Nontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of
Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona
Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "j"
Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove
properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year
floodplain. The channelization project does not include
properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and
some areas which are not contained within a channel will
continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows
these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third
Avenue subject to further study) and private country club to
signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain
designation. In addition, since the special study area requires
project specific environmental review to assess potential issues
with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects.
2. Otay River Valley ~
The Otay River Valley bounas the southern edge of the planning
area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San
Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are
interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal
industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing
yards.
The area south of ~lain Street between Broadway and Industrial
ana a small area north of I.Iain Street between Industrial
Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100
year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main
Street was developed with industrial buildings under County
regulations prior to annexation under development regulations
requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when
flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a
combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage
and industrial yards, intermixed with residential and commercial
uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties.
The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County
floodplain development regulations so that a permanent
development pattern has already been established. The area
south of Main Street is proposed for Research and Industrial
land uses subject to special study prior to designation of
pemanent land uses.
The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay
River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under
this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted
until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands
determination studies, as well as development of a regional
park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to
review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding
designation pending resolution of'complex environmental and
jurisOictional land use issues. As such, no adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the
proposals outlined in the plan.
Land Use/Social Displacement
There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan
proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses
which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These
areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street
and Rios Avenue (Brodericks OtayAcres),.2) properties south of Main ·
Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and
Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del Piar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.)
These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or
people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in
land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows.
1) Brodericks Otay Acres
The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily
with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential
streets in combination with the use of private streets and
drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single
family uses.
In ~4ay of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's
Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow
development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5
net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units
have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apart~aents have occurred. The draft Nontgomery Specific Plan
proposes to return the designated land use to single family
development with a density of no more than five dwellings per
ac re.
Since the proposed land use designation is in keeping with the
existing land uses present and the circulation system available,
and since there are no actual apartments developed within this
subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur
from this action.
2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently
zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties
operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and
include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities
conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open
uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature
and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit
process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from
operation of these businesses.
The proposea land use designation under the draft plan would
prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict
development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although
displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards
would occur, development of other industrial activities which do
not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under
implementation of the specific plan. The development of other
industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a
beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment
associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the
displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a
level below significance.
3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy
The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus
point for community civic and commercial activities within the
area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford
Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street.
This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the
plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus.
Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of
commercial land use designations along the east side of Third
Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in
Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations
would take place on properties which are currently residential
in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing
housing as an indirect result of development according to the
plan.
However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated
as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates
that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a
commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive
studies which address socio-economic, environmental, housing,
townscape planning, and traffic issues."
The special study area is structured so that commercial
development on properties with existing residential uses is
precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected.
In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
stuoies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposeo action
at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant
environmental impact.
Transportation/Access
Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are
suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and
infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to
widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at
Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at
Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects
which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these
revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering
studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals
to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon
further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse
environmental impact.
Landform/Topography
One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~loodlawn Park,
is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of
larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further
development of this area for single family residential uses as
outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve
substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard
development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the
City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be
obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed
circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental
assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific
impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures
Manual for the City of Chula Vista.
Given these standard development regulations, no significant and
adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep
topographic conditions at the plan stage.
E. Project Modifications
Groundwater/Drainage -
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas
is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and
whitelands designations, no mitigation is required.
Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses
which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on
site. Those areas are listed as follows:
A. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted
residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since
the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by
the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area ~nvolve scrap operations and
heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and
Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft
Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result.
However, since the proposed land use designation would foster
industrial activities offering other employment opportunities
without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and
dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will
occur and no mitigation is required.
C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy
Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with
existing established single family dwellings as part of a
proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus.
However, since implementation of the commercial land use is
precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences
and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study
area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
Transportation/Access
The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic
circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the
widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hgllister
Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange
Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these
proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not
significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required
at this point.
Landform/Topography
The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. Further development for single
family residences may include significant alteration of existing
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant
environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future
review.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to
avoid any significant impact.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development
within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive
areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed
project will not degrade the quality of the environment.
2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and
long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through
protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly
and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of
the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area.
3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no
significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified;
there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively conservative.
4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial
adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
2. Documents
l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 {Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code
2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista
3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1987
4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corp,.
of Engineers' Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March
'~ 987
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September lg79
6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency,
June 15, 1964
7) South Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985
8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance
9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista
lO) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
~TAL R COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
WPC 4242P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department CIWOF
environmental review section
EXHIBIT A
I
\
\
T
.... ~' ~ FUR OFFICE USE
" Case No. IS-88-65M
Fee _
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. --
Date Rec'd ~-t/-~,.~
City of Chula Vista Accepted by --
Application Form Project No. ~/~ ..~ ~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A)
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the
three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or
regulatory mechanisms which are designed to ex~t~ nr ~ff~ntu~?~ the plan
4. Name of Applicant CitS of Chula Vista, Planninq Departmen~
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner and
Frank J. Herrera, Assl§~ans ~tn%~r
Address Same as #4
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant Agent
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit ]' Design Review Board
X Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map . Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
__ Location Map . Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
__ Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
---~-Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or .. Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
' E~ ] (Rev. 12/82)
3/3/88
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT
PART THREE PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1
B. Past Plan Implementation 1
C. Present Plan Implementation 2
D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3
A. Adopted County Zoning PTan/City Zoning Plan 3
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4
1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4
2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5
3. Special Montgomery Regulations 6
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8
III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION lO
A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls 10
B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12
C. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13
D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13
E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15
IV. CONCLUSION 16
WPC 4173P
DRAFT ~iONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PART THREE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation
The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal
parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan
proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends
analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of
the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general
objectives, policies, .principles, and planning and design
proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan.
Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms
which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains
the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the
Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text.
B. Past Plan Implementation
Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon
the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and
objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both
application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery.
Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on
general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning
needs of Montgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation
efforts in Montgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation,
subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary
land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery
Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and
-1-
missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General
Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust
formulated in conjunction with these issues.
C. Present Plan Implementation
Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula
Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's
administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula
Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and
general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan
calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more
identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
D. Proposed Plan Implementation
The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations"
and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former
addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use
within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of
greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery
Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected
city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored
"Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special
Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban
design guidelines.
A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is
the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the
City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its
incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from
"County Zoning" to "City Zoning."
-2-
The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and
special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital
improvement programming; code enforcement and coord!nation;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental
planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
It should ~e recognized that Part Three establishes an
Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The
rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be
undertaken separately.
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS
A. Adopted County Zonin9 Plan/City Zonin9 Plan
The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego
County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by the City of Chula Vista upon
the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning
Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and
flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of
developments over a broad geographical area. -~
The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually
grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of
the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and
executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable.
Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista
Zoning Plan.
While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial
retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both
confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide
instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's identity and unique
-3-
land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as
modified by the special provisions and regulations of the
Implementation Program.
The "Special Montgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of
this section of Part III, shall take precedence over other land use
regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them.
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan
1. Zoning and Residential Density Controlc
The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant
of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the
territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the
existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing
public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the
physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the
involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula
Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied
to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive
than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan
designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a
fundamental basis of the Implementation Program.
With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or
texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit
per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the
zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not
permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these
Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants
mentioned in the above paragraph.
The Montgomery specific Plan's gross residential density
categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential
density standards, which are fundamental to zoning
regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning
definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in
Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are:
"Net residential density is the density of the building
site. Gross residential density is the density of the
building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and
drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter
of bounding street intersections."
As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is
approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore,
if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it
has a gross density of 10 dwelling units per acre.*
2. Proposed Zonin9 Amendments & Table of Translation
The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and
changes which are essential to the effective implementation
and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the
conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning.
The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended
County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide
for the direct translation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's
land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is
therefore called the "Table of Translation."
* Galtion & Eisner, in The Urban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is
(the) area exclusive o~ public rights-of-way...whereas "gross density"
usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of
land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A
distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for
certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant
measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by
gross density.
-5-
3. Special Montgomery Regulations
a. Land Use
(1) The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a
planned equilibrium of medium density residential,
park and open space, institutional, commercial, and
light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land,
such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards,
waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel
operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and
shall not be expanded or continued beyond their
existing time limits, or within 24 months after the
date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L,
Limited Industrial," whichever occurs last. This
protracted time limit is designed to provide the
involved land users the opportunity to convert their
open uses of land into well-designed, authorized
light-industrial developments.
All of the subject uses which are not time-limited
shall be governed by the City's Nonconforming Uses
regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
(2) Existing vehicular and equipment storage yards and
open impounds shall not be governed by the above
provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope
or tenure. New vehicular and equipment storage
yards or open impounds shall be generally
discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under
the conditional use permit process.
-6-
(3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage
industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned;
thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning
Committee and the City Planning Commissi6n; and,
approved under the City's conditional use permit
process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use
development, residential land use shall not be
permitted in industrial or commercial zones.
(4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter
5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be
permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial
Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use
permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be
prohibited.
(5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of
the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula
Vista Design Review Committee, may authorize a
maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a
project proposed for development within an area
designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" (3-6
dwelling units per acre). This authorization must
be predicated upon the Director's finding that the
proposed project would be characterized by
outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not
become effective or operational in the absence of
its ratification by the Planning Commission.
The subject residential bonus would not be
applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior
Housing ~evelopment, as defined in Section 19.04.201
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies
for an affordable-housing density bonus under
-7-
Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government
Code, or the provisions of the Housing Element of
the Chula Vista General Plan.
b. Height
The height of commercial and industrial buildings and
structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not
exceed two stories, or 28 feet.
c. Setbacks
All buildings constructed along the Main Street,
Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain
minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the
front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the
rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking
and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the
required setback areas.
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines
a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the
Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee
shall be prerequisit~ to its approval or conditional
approval of a developmental project.
b. The Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the
fundamental guide for the design review of projects
proposed for development within )lontgomery. Under
special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or
redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus,
shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial
enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning
-8-
Committee may determine that the townscape-planning
guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are
appropriate, and may request their employment, by the
Design Peview Committee.
c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be
promoted in the development of residential, commercial,
industrial, and civic projects.
d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of
vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be
artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane
landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The
landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated
with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which
they are located.
e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between
residential and other land use categories shall be
encouraged.
f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial project
should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of
the involved parcel's street frontage.
Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is
not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum,
twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may
-9-
be permitted through the conditional Imajor) use permit
and design review processes. A directional sign
permitted under this provision shall not be located
within, or overhang a street right-of-way.
New development should reflect the basic design character
and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is
sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and
Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle
Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third
Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could
achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high
levels of urbanity and sophistication.
h. Architectural diversity and freedom should be encouraged
in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, however, will
necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design
coordination.
i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture,
bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered.
These features could commemorate the history of the
involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence.
j. Vertical or.~oof-mounted structures which do not make an
important design statement should be discouraged.
III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN IMPLE~IEN?ATION
A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls
Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of
vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This
process establishes a lot and street pattern, which greatly
-10-
influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is
substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner.
Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery
has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which
permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and
amorphous design. This has significantly impaired the Community's
order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and
circulation. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the
improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical
reorganization.
Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to
Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the
Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior
substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented
with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more
orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such
special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition
of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets;
and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard
cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also
stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the
establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially
reduce on-street and front yard parking and storage, and thereby
improve the overall appearance of Montgomery.
Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's
subdivision controls, as amended in 'accordance with the above
suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and
objectives of the Montgomery Community.
-ll-
B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Pro~ramminq
Chula Vista's Haster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major
capital improvements of citywide significance. The l~ntgomery
Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital
improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery
planning area to the year 2005.
The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or
may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public
libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will
have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as
school districts and public utility companies. It will require an
annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources
available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the
Montgomery Specific Plan.
The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of
long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity.
The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement
Program could facilitate the advance purchase of public sites at a
substantial savings. This program could also encourage private
investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate
their development programs with those of the City.
Capital improvement programming for Montgomery should be oriented
toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities.
Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the
goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan.
-12-
C. Code Enforcement and Coordination
While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the
public safety, health, and general welfare, it also provides a
plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to
foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline;
and, promote revitalization.
Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be
conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with
other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment,
and conservation. In Montgomery, the code enforcement program
should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the
Specific Plan.
D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment
The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of
Montgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end.
These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the
selective application of urban renewal measures, such as
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures~
may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the
circumstances of the particular project.
1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal,
and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not
significant. It often involves the cleaning and sprucing up
of residential neighborhoods or commercial areas, and the
provision of improved public services, works, and
infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively
undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and usually
do not entail extensive contributions from local government.
-13-
In the Montgomery Community, where much conservation activity
is indicated, the ~iontgomery Planning Committee should promote
it on an outreach basis.
2. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area
where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of
concerted action by the private and public sectors could
result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation,
the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of
any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a
general rule, street improvements or additional public
facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of
dignity," and requires a strong community commitment.
Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be
stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and
zoning, code enforcement, Communqty Development's housing
programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program.
3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be
used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it
includes the remedies associated with conservation and
rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the
replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of
buildings; the r?latting of territory; and the expenditure of
considerable capital for public improvements.
Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled
by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public
improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment
financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within
Montgomery, such as West Fairfield, where land must be
marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most
practical remedy available is redevelopment.
-14-
E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program
The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) is a newly
instituted City program which has the expressed aim of ~ombining
well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical
facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program
include:
-- identification and prioritization of needed public capital
improvements;
-- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation
loan program;
-- public education on zoning, building and other City codes;
-- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up
programs.
The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in
limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered
prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for
target-area status:
-- need for public improvements;
-- need for housing rehabilitation;
-- neighborhood character;
-- income status;
-- demonstration of local support for NRP.
-15-
IV. CONCLUSION
The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is
specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives,
statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the
Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses
the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition
to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The
program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's
organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban
center in question.
The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called
"incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day
application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally,
the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered
to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
WPC 4173P
-16-
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
consu]tant' 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 impac~ and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: . ~,Alkk~Ck-~ /~; Iq~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
oesignation on site:
North
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? '{'C ~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? /( ,lc,,
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect-or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) i/~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 'I ;.~)
- 9 -
· 3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
Jr. High ~[~ ~
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to he at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk,~form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) A_~ ~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year) '
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Dsrector ot Planning or Representative i~ate /' ~ ~
-lO-
Case lo.
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any:flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities?
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities?
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? /,9//~
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 compl etlon?
Be fore After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly. ~Y/~
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?.
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? .
4. Soils ;
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary? a~/m
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site? _. y~y/~
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~Y/~
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? ~
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
CO I X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) X 20.0 =
Particulates ~ 1.5 :
Sul fur ~ X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ Liquid
~hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City E~gi~r'o~ R~l~re~gbnt. ative · Da
Case No.
FIRE DEPART%lENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? ~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase,in equipment
or personnel? m. '
.Remarks
Case No.
FIRE DEPARTMENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? ~/~
W~]] the ~re Department be able to provide an adequate ~eve] o'~
protection ~o~ t~e p~oposed fa~]~t~ wSthout an ~nc~ease.~n equipment
Eire Harsha)
- 14 -
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE No..
I. Analysis {Provide in Section j an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL NO
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial '
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure? .. .~
~ A significant modification of any unique
geological features? (~
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards?
2. Soils
a. Does the project s'ite contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? ~
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site? J
A Significant amount of siltation? ,~.
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground ~ater resources? _~_~ ~j~'-
- 15 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of ground water?
A significant alteration of direction or rate
of flow of ground water?
Any other significant affect on ground water?
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff?
Any increase in runoff beyond the-capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either on-site or downstream?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
waves?
5. Resources
Could the project result in:
Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources ~,~hich can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change,
in topography or ground surface relief features?
YES POTENTIAL NO
7. Air Quality -- --
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke?
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality?
Exacerbation or a violation of any National -- ~ --~
or State ambient air quality standard?
Interference with the maintenance, of
standard air quality?
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally?
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies {RAQS)? _
8. ~ater Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public wa~er supplies?
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources?
b. Could the project directly or .indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels?
- 17 -
YES POTENTIAL
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife? _~
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemic species? ~
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological resource? ~
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
ParkNoise ~~ and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
YES POTENTIAL NO
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan? _.
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards ·
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public? __~
Will the proposal result in a nevi light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
The~ntial demand for additional housing
or--existing housing?
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project? _
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
Fire Protection
Police Protection
Schools -., ,
Parks or Recreational Facilities ....
Maintenance of Public Facilities ,
Including Roads 0 ~
-19-
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy?
.,
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy?
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources?
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for neY1 systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas
Communications systems
Water
Sewer or septic tanks
Solid ~/aste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard?
19. Transportation/Access
Could the project result .in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns?
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level?
20. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-rene~able natural resources?
- 20 -
YES POT£NTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances ~including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? .
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level?
22. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment? __~
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? IA short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, whil~ long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) L~
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? {Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable t.zhen viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which k~ill cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? .
- 22 -
K. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
L~It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
__It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED.NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
__ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an. ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
__ It is found that further information will be necessary to
determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
Env '~~ ~'~'~'" ~--~ Date
i ronmenta,/~=v,~, Coordinator
WPC 0169P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of ~lay 10, 1989 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HE~RING: Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-88-2 , General
Plan Update
A. BACKGROUND
The Chula Vista General Plan Update area includes the City of Chula Vista,
its sphere of influence and some area in addition to its currently defined
sphere which is within its planning area. This area extends from San
Diego Bay east to the Otay Reservoirs, north to SR-54 and the Sweetwater
River and south to Otay Mesa.
The purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise
informational document which analyzes the environmental consequences of
adoption of the proposed updated and modified Elements. The EIR is not a
decision-making document, rather, the information contained herein is
intended to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista decision-makers in
their consideration of approval of the proposed General Plan update. It
should be noted that there is no proposed development associated with this
project, as the "project" is the Plan Update. Accordingly, as specified
by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146, the degree of specificity of this EIR
corresponds to the degree of specificity in the General Plan Update
document. This document is a "tiered" Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15152). The General Plan ~mendment tiering
concept is designed to promote efficiency in the environmental review
process. It allows agencies to deal with broad environmental issues in
EIRs in early planning stages and then provide more detailed examination
of specific projects in EIRs in later development projects that are
consistent with or implement the plans. The later EIRs are exempted from
repeating the analysis of the broad environmental issues examined in the
earlier EIRs.
The scope of the EIR was determined by the City to include those issues
which could potentially be affected by adoption of the General Plan
update. These issues include:
Mobile Noise Source
Geology Bi ol ogy
Soil s Archaeology
Groundwater Pal eontol ogi cal Resources
Drainage
Mineral Resources Historical Resources
Landform Land Use/Gen. Plan Elements/Zoning
Conversion of Agric. Lands Aesthetics
Air Quality Community Social Factors
Water Quality Community Tax Structure
Parks, Recreation and Utilities and Services
Open Space Transportation/Access
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 2
The EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing
impacts, and other environmental summaries as required by CEQA.
The lead agency for this project is the City of Chula Vista. CEQA defines
the lead agency as 'fthe public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." The City has
solicited comments from responsible agencies and interested parties
regarding potential environmental affects by use of a Notice of
Preparation (NOP).
The environmental consultant responsible for the preparation of this
report is P&D Technologies, Inc., of San Diego, California. Preparers of
and contributors to this report are listed in Section ll.O of the Draft
EIR.
This draft EIR on the General Plan Update is subject to a 45-day review
period through the State Clearing House (SCH) which will conclude shortly
before the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Any comments that are
received from the SCH will be presented to the Commission at the meeting.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR-88-2, close the hearing and
give P&D and staff any desired direction for the preparation of the final
EIR to be considered at a special meeting on May 31, 1989.
C. /~NALYS IS
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources - The Planning Area is characterized
by severa~ distinct geologic ~ormatiuns. Beginning in the west, along the
bayfront and the river valleys, alluvium and slopewash predominate; going
east, the region is underlain by marine sandstone, the San Diego formation
and finally the Otay formation and Mission Valley formation. Numerous
soil types also exist, the predominant soil series in the Eastern
Territories is the Diable series, which is a well-drained clay soil with
high shrink-swell potential. The Otay Valley is identified by the State
Mining and Geology Board as containing mineral resources; a 2,780 acre
area is classified by the State as Sector R and is estimated to contain
approximately l0 million short tons of resources. The Planning Area is
crossed by the La Nacion fault zone and contains both ancient and/or
recent landslides and areas of 1 iquifaction.
As a result of these hazards, and the known instability of some of the
geologic formations present in the Planning Area, significant impacts to
future development could occur. These impacts could be reduced to a level
of less than significant by various mitigation measures. Measures include
project specific detailed geotechnical analyses; avoidance of landslide
areas and alluvium near streambeds; and specified investigations to define
fault locations and determine setbacks.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 3
Hydrology/Water Quality - The Planning Area contains several major
~ainages and one reservoir. The Sweetwater River, Otay River and
Telegraph Canyon drainage flow east to west and empty into San Diego Bay.
The Sweetwater River carries flows from Long Canyon and Rice Canyon.
Prior to entering the Planning Area it feeds the Sweetwater reservoir.
The Otay Reservoir captures flow from several drainages in the east
including Jamul Creek and Proctor Valley Creek.
Future development would result in overcovering of the soil and increased
surface water runoff. Potentially adverse impacts would result if
drainage facilities were not sized to accommodate future flow. Compliance
with the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan and Drainage Master
Plan of the City would reduce this possibility and no significant impacts
v~ould result. No significant impacts to water quality are expected from
future land uses designated by the General Plan Update.
Biolog7 - The Planning Area contains several large areas of undeveloped,
~rbed land covered with native vegetation which support know
sensitive animal and plant species. The predominant vegetation is sage
scrub. Full development of the Planning Area would result in replacement
of a substantial portion of this native vegetation wi th non-native
vegetation and urban land uses. The Chula Vista Greenbelt system would
retain the Otay River Valley and other smaller canyons in open space which
would preserve some habitat, but the overall land use plan would involve
impacts to a substantial portion of the native vegetation. Several
sensitive species would be impacted. Specific mitigation is recommended
to minimize potential impacts to particular species on a project-by-
project basis. These would be implemented during the environmental review
process. A plant species list has been recommended for inclusion in
revegetation plans to avoid the introduction of non-native species. A
land clearing permit has also been suggested to minimize the loss of
sensitive shrublands often incurred during land clearing or creation of
fuel reduction zones. However, adoption of the General Plan Update and
eventual buildout would result in significant cumulative impacts to
biological resources which are unmitigable.
Archaeolo~Lv/Paleontology - The Planning Area contains several known
-significant archaeological sites and several areas have yielded important
fossil remains. Areas which have been identified as having potential for
archaeological and paleontological resources have been mapped as part of
this work effort. The potential for future development to significantly
impact resources is high. Mitigation measures to minimize impacts include
archaeological surveys of undisturbed land and preservation or data
recovery of cultural resources identified as significant. Also, a
paleontological monitor would be present at the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediment of high and medium potential and fossil
recovery would be completed as necessary. It is anticipated that all
future impacts would be mitigated by these measures.
City Planning Commission Page 4
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
Air Quality Development of future projects in the Planning Area would
-result in increased traffic on new and existing roadways with an
associated increase in air emissions. Fugitive dust released from
construction is considered a short-term nuisance and would not be a
significant impact. Some intersections near freeways currently, and would
at buildout, experience congestion which can lead to creation of carbon
monoxide "hot spots." The City of Chula Vista has run several air quality
models at these congested intersections and no "hot spots" have been
identified.
However, the potential does exist and is considered a significant impact.
Buildout of the Plan area is not consistent with the 1982 SIP (Air Quality
State Implementation Plan) growth projections and some residual impacts
could occur. Assuming the SIP revisions, which are currently being
initiated with growth projections consistent with the Plan Update, are
completed prior to buildout, and all individual projects are in compliance
with the SIP measures, no adverse impacts are expected.
Noise - The increase in traffic would result in additional noise generated
~ roadways. In the existing urban areas some sensitive receptors,
primarily residential development, may be subject to exterior noise levels
in excess of 65 dB(A). Given that mitigation may be infeasible or
impractical, it is anticipated that some significant, unmitigated impacts
would occur. Undeveloped areas would be subject to site and project
specific environmental review to minimize noise levels and assure no
sensitive receptors are subject to incompatible levels. As long as
projects comply with measures to reduce noise levels, no significant
impacts are anticipated in the area of future development, specifically
the Eastern Territories.
Conversion of Agricultural Land - The Eastern Territories contains several
Thousand acres of land within Che Coastal and Maritime climates which have
the ability to produce off-season tomatoes, vegetables and floral crops,
most of which have statewide and national importance. However, the land
is not currently in production and would be very expensive to irrigate.
All of this acreage would be converted to urban uses as part of the
General Plan Update which is considered a significant impact. Mitigation
of this impact can only be achieved by retaining the existing agricultural
designations; because this is not proposed the impacts to agricultural
land are considered significant and unmitigated.
Landform/Aesthetics - The Chula Vista landform is characterized by three
areas; the coastal area which is a low, relatively flat plain; the rolling
hills east of 1-805 and west of Otay Lakes; and, mountain foothills. In
the Eastern Territories, where land is currently vacant and undeveloped,
land use changes associated with the proposed Plan Update would result in
a significant change to the existing landform and visual quality. The
majority of the landform and visual resources such as mesas and hilltops
would be significantly altered. The only way to fully mitigate this
significant impact would be by preservation. Because this measure is
considered infeasible, impacts to landform and visual quality are
considered significant and unmitigated.
City Planning Commission Page 5
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
Land Uses/General Plan/Zonin~ The General Plan area contains five
communities: Bayfront, Montgomery, Central Chula Vista, Sweetwater and
Eastern Territories. The Plan Update incorporates, by reference, the
recently adopted specific and community plans for the Bayfront, Montgomery
and Sweetwater. Central Chula Vista would not be substantially altered.
The Plan Update would involve substantial changes to the Eastern
Territories as currently rural land would be developed with urban uses.
Because this area was previously designated for future urban development,
this is not regarded as a significant impact. Potential land use
incompatibilities would be alleviated by adherence to policies and
guidelines contained in the Land Use Element. However, if existing zoning
is not consistent with the Land Use Element, significant impacts would
result.
Community Social Factors - The 1986 population of the City was 116,295;
the target population of the proposed General Plan Update is 209,400
persons. It should be noted that some of this increase would be due to
annexation of land area; however eventual General Plan development would
increase the population of the Planning Area by more than half and involve
a corresponding increase in housing stock. Such development would
represent an adverse impact to the infrastructure and transportation
system of the City. Given implementation of the goals, objectives and
policies of the General Plan Update and Area Plans, increased
infrastructure would be required to assure that future development would
not create significant impacts.
Community Tax Structure - Adoption of the proposed Plan Update would
~esu~t in aooltlona~ oemands for services prowded by the City as well as
generate income for the City from increased property and sales tax. The
net fiscal impact from development was calculated by area and city-wide.
The net impact would be positive in the Eastern Territories and Central
Chula Vista (including Bayfront) Planning Areas. A slightly negative
fiscal impact would be expected in the Montgomery and Sweetwater Planning
Areas. Overall, the net fiscal impact would be positive.
Parks, Recreation and O~en Space - The City of Chula Vista currently
-contains z~! acres o~ community and neighborhood parks, with an average of
2.56 acres of park per 1,O00 population. This does not meet the park
standard contained in the existing General Plan. The neighborhoods in the
area north of L Street and west of 1-805 have the greatest deficit of park
facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Plan Update would allow for
expansion of park facilities resulting in a total of 5.33 acres of park
land per 1,O00 population. This exceeds the Standard contained in the
Threshold Policy and no adverse impacts are expected. Adoption of the
proposed Plan would result in the loss of 8,547 acres of open space, land
which is currently viewed as vacant and rural. Although this acreage is
designated as interim open space and planned for eventual development, the
loss of this substantial amount of open space is considered significant
and unmitigable except by preservation.
City Planning Commission Page 6
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
Utilities and Services Implementation of the General Plan Land Use
Element would result in additional population and housing units which
would generate school age children. The Plan Update incorporates site
locations for future school facilities. All future development projects
would be evaluated by the City and School Districts for compliance with
pertinent policies and ~ould be subject to school fees, financing
districts, and assessments as established by the State and City,
therefore no significant impacts are expected. There may, however, be
the Central Chula Vista Area
some difficulty in providing facilities in
which is a potentially significant impact. Schools in this area could be
expanded; however, the financing of these projects would be difficult.
Project development would place additional demand on police protection
providers which would require a substantial increase in personnel and
construction of police facilities. Funding would be provided by taxes
generated from future development, including a supplemental development
impact fee. With adequate facilities and personnel provided, no
significant impacts would occur. Construction of fire stations in
conformance with the Fire Station Master Plan would result in fire
protection and emergency medical service being available to all residents
of the Planning Area within an acceptable time period.
Water to the Planning Area, via the two aqueducts operated by CWA, is not
adequate during current peak demand periods. The increased demand for
water would place greater demand on the already strained facilities. This
represents a significant impact. Mitigation is possible by increasing the
transmission of water, which could be accomplished by construction of a
new aqueduct or additional storage facilities. However, the transmission
of water does not control the actual supply of water; without a water
source transmission facilities are dry pipes. The OWD is currently
negotiating with the Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego to
increase storage capacity in their facilities. There are also plans to
construct additional storage facilities to serve long-term needs. To
minimize the demand for water, a serious effort at conservation should be
implemented on a regional level. Also, conformance with the standards in
the Threshold Policy would ensure that no development would be allowed
without a guaranteed water supply from the local provider.
Buildout of the General Plan would result in a substantial increase in
wastewater generated, particularly in the undeveloped Eastern Territories
areas. Until the San Diego METRO system upgrade is complete, there is not
enough capacity to treat the sewage to be generated. During the interim,
however, there is about 7 million gallons per day of capacity available to
Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista should work closely with the City of
San Diego in upgrading the METRO system with an emphasis on reclamation to
minimize the quantity of flow requiring treatment. To ensure that sewage
facilities are not overburdened, the wastewater standard of the Threshold
Policy should be enforced. This requires the preparation of a 12 to 15
month development forecast to detail the amount of capacity used or
committed, ability of facilities to absorb growth and an evaluation of
funding. This will allow both METRO and the City to identify and plan for
phasing of development with adequate sewage capacity. This would forge a
link between phase development and the improvement of infrastructure.
There would be no significant impacts to provision of utilities from
future buildout of the General Plan area.
Transportation/Access - The proposed circulation network for the City of
Chula Vista would be'adequate to accommodate future land uses and traffic
growth in most areas. Three roadway segments have been identified as
City Planning Commission Page 7
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
having future ADT which would result in LOS below C which is regarded as a
significant impact. Mitigation measures to minimize the projected, future
congestion include decreasing trips or increasing capacity. Given the
constraints of existing development, both measures are considered
infeasible. Congestion on these roadway segments is considered a
significant and unmitigable impact.
One new intersection, Paseo Ranchero at Otay Valley Road, has been
identified as potentially congested and will require design, but not
necessarily implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation can be
provided via grade-separation of the intersection to eliminate turn
movement conflicts. The 1-805/East "H" Street interchange has also been
identified as congested and would require mitigation. However, not enough
information is available from the Chula Vista traffic model to develop
specific mitigations. Congestion could potentially be relieved via
traffic reduction measures for the 1-805 corridor. These could include a
high occupancy vehicle and/or express bus service on 1-805. Both of these
measures would require region-wide cooperation and are beyond the
jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. For purposes of this analysis,
this is considered a significant, unmitigable impact.
Hazardous Waste/Risk of Upset - Within the City of Chula Vista there are
27 known and listed hazardou~ waste sites as well as one hazardous waste
treatment site. Future development, consistent wi th proposed General Plan
Land Use Element may result in significant impacts if such development
allows greater contact between humans and hazardous waste. This potential
impact can be reduced to a level below insignificance with implementation
of mitigation measures to avoid contact between sensitive land uses and
known hazardous waste sites.
D. ENVIROI~qENTAL ~PACT SUMMARY
1. Unavoidable Impacts
The eventual conversion of undeveloped land in the Eastern
Territories to urban uses would result in certain impacts which
cannot be avoided. The unavoidable impacts which would occur as a
result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Update include:
Incremental increase in traffic generation and distribution with
an associated increase in noise levels, mobile source emissions,
and change in the character of certain communities.
The destruction/loss of existing archaeological and
paleontological resources located within the development areas
of the Planning Area.
Loss of valuable agricultural land and open space.
The potential loss of significant biological resources,
including several sensitive plant and animal species.
City Planning Commission Page 8
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
The additional demand for public services and utilities,
particularly water.
2. S~i~nificant Environmental Impacts
The draft EIR addressed 15 issue areas in the Environmental Analysis
section (Section 3.0). The proposed General Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts to every issue area, however several
significant impacts are anticipated. Development of the Planning
Area would have adverse impacts to biological resources including
several habitat types which support sensitive plant and animal
species. Major landform features would be significantly affected as
well as the amount of open space. Valuable agricultural land would
be permanently removed from crop production which is a significant
impact. Community character would be significantly changed when
roadway improvements occur adjacent to existing residential
development. Other impacts associated with the proposed plan are
either not significant or can be reduced to a level of less than
significant if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.
Increased density in Central Chula Vista creating a potentially
unavoidable impact on school facilities.
3. Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are recommended to either reduce or
eliminate potential impacts to a level below significance. These
mi tigation measures are summarized below.
Soils/Geology/Mineral Resources - Development in landslide areas,
alluvium near streambeds an~ MRZ-2 classified areas would be
avoided. Soil types identified as not suitable for development would
be subject to remedial grading techniques in accordance with the City
of Chula Vista's Grading Ordinance.
rolo, /Ground Water/Water Quality - All future developments would
~d ~ ~Y ..... . .... ~+ies Element of the General Plan and the
~omp~y with the YUD/1C rab~,~
City Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Site specific drainage
review would occur on a project-by-project basis.
Biolog~_y - Several specific mitigation measures have been recommended
~-o~- implementation on a project-by-project basis. These include
minimum acreage of preservation for certain species and minimum
buffer widths. A suggested list of landscaping material was also
provided to minimize the introduction of non-native species. To
minimize the destruction of native habitat from unnecessary clearing,
a clearing permit was suggested. This would provide the City with
some control over clearing of land to potentially reduce the amount
of native vegetation disturbed from this activity.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 9
Archaeology/Paleontolo~ - Any future development would be subjected
to archaeo~og~ca~ surveys. In areas where the potential for
paleontological resources is considered medium to high, a qualified
paleontologist would be on-site during original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments.
Air Quality All recommendations contained in the current SIP and
SIP currently being revised should be adopted and enforced by the
City. The most substantial mitigation measures will take the form of
regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (~MT) reduction programs. Several
regional transit elements should be encouraged by the City including
a transit system along the route 125 corridor, an east-west bus route
between the eastern core and future eastern urban center, and an
urban core/bayfront shuttle.
Noise - To ensure consistent implementation of and review of proposed
projects, the City should establish a noise-compatibility standard,
or adopt the one established by the City of San Diego (Table 3-7).
Mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to an acceptable level
include construction of noise attenuation barriers (walls), special
construction materials in windows and walls, and site design to place
sensitive receptors within adequate noise contours. All of these
measures should be reviewed and implemented on a site specific basis.
Conversion of Agricultural Land Preservation would be required to
~ully mitigate the adverse impacts to agricultural lands. The
proposed plan does not preserve agricultural land. The impact is
considered significant and unmitigable.
Landform/Aesthetics Significant, unmiti§able impacts to landform
and aesthetics wou~d occur. Preservation of the rolling hills and
open vistas of the Eastern Territories would be required to fully
mitigate these impacts, which is not proposed as part of the General
Plan Update.
Land Uses/General Plan/Zoning - Careful review of secondary uses
proposed in SDG~ right-of-waY ~ould minimize potential conflicts.
Adherence to the policies and guidelines in the proposed Land Use
Element would alleviate any land use incompatibilities. Existing
zoning should conform to General Plan designations.
Community Social Factors - Implementation of the goals, objectives
and policies o~ the General Plan Elements, as a whole, would provide
adequate infrastructure and service provisions to assure no
significant impacts.
Community Tax Structure - No adverse impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation would be necessary.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page l0
Park, Recreation and Open Space - Parks and Recreation facilities
would be built in accordance with the policies and guidelines in the
Parks and Recreation Element to provide adequate facilities for the
future population of the Planning Area. The loss of a substantial
amount of open space acreage in the Eastern Territories (8,567 acres)
is considered significant and unmitigable.
Utilities and Services All developers would pay school fees as
required by State law or form Community Facility Districts to fund
the acquisition of new school sizes and facilities. Preventive
measures would be implemented to minimize demand placed on police
providers. All future development proposals would be consistent with
the recommendations contained in the Draft Fire Station Location
Study. The City and developers would work with the CWA, OW1) and
~water Authority to achieve greater storage capacity and increase
the flow of water into the region. Water conservation measures would
be devised and aggressively implemented to minimize water demand and
wastewater generati on.
Traffic All of the goals, policies and objectives of the
~tion Element and Traffic section of the Threshold Policy
should be implemented by the City. These policies concern the
operational goals of the local circulation system and the regional
transit network. All lar~e-scale development projects should receive
project-by-project traffic evaluation to identify the potential
impacts to the existing network and provide for phased implementation
of the planned system. Developers should be assessed fees to fund
roadway improvements or construct new roads as deemed appropriate by
the Ci ry.
Hazardous Waste/Risk of Upset - The City would work with the County
to encourage a reduction in household waste generation and safe
disposal of waste. Prior to approval of development plans the City
shall refer to the State Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List to
verify the potential for direct or indirect impacts to hazardous
waste. When any development is proposed on or near a known hazardous
waste site, an analysis would be prepared to verify potential impacts
and devise a clean-up method if necessary.
E. ALTERNATIVES
1. Olympic Training Site Alternative
This alternative is proposed west of the Lower Otay Reservoir, south
of Telegraph Canyon Road near the end of the planned extension of
Orange Avenue. In the proposed Land Use Element this area is
designated low density residential (0-3 du/acres), with a maximum of
666 units over 222 acres. Approximately 39 acres are designated for
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page ll
a regional park and the remaining 233 acres would be designated open
space, primarily adjacent to the Reservoir. This alternative
includes an Olympic Training Site, a variety of residential options
and retail and visitor commercial land uses. A comparison of the
proposed designation by acreage, is provided in Table 5-4 of the
Draft EIR and the basic features of these designations are discussed
below. Figure 5-8 of the Draft EIR provides a schematic illustration
of the proposed General Plan and alternative for comparison purposes.
The training facility itself is intended to become the major training
center in the nation for Olympic sports (water sports, track and
field, etc.). Activities would include short and long term training
for elite-and development-level athletes, seminars, clinics, and
conferences, as well as sports medicine and sports science research.
The character of the facility is intended to be campus-like, with
sports areas and buildings sited within open space. While the main
use of the site would be for sports training activities, the size
would al so pro vi de housing and dining for athletes, offices,
laboratories, meeting rooms, parking and storage. Housing for
athletes could increase from 300 to 1,O00 at buildout.
The potential Olympic training facility extends from the designated
regional park area north to a realigned Orange Avenue. The
realignment would create an intersection of Orange Avenue with Wueste
Road, where a Visitor Commercial parcel (approximately 31 acres in
size) would be located. Development on this parcel could provide
lodging for those associated with the training facility or could
constitute a destination resort itself. The intended character is
proposed to be a low intensity "lodge" type facility, possibly with
mi nor resort amenities. It could al so accommodate vi sitors or
tourists attracted to the training site for participation in short
term events or spectators for athletic events.
A retail commercial parcel would be included on Orange Avenue, west
of the training site. This area (approximately 15 acres) is
projected for development as a commercial "village" with casual
shopping, dining and entertainment uses. It would cater to both the
athletes in training and visitors, and, to a certain extent, the
community residents. It is intended to have a low intensity
character, influenced by its proximity to the training facility.
The alternative also includes an increased number and wider range o
residential units. Low density designations are proposed for
property nearest the Otay Lake edge north of Orange Avenue and
adjoining Telegraph Canyon Road. These uses would surround the more
intense uses. Three parcels of low-medium density, one medium
density parcel and one high density parcel would be between Orange
Avenue and Telegraph Canyon Road. A total of 1,052 dwelling units
would be planned for this area.
City Planning Commission Page 12
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
To analyze the potential impacts of this alternative, the project
boundaries have been placed on the six resource maps created as part
of this work effort. These graphics illustrate the known geologic,
soils, and vegetation resources in the area, the location of
sensitive animal and plant species, and the areas of potential
paleontological and archaeological resources. The potential impacts
associated with the proposed alternative were then identified given
the resources known to exist at this time. It should be noted that
this impact analysis is based on conceptual, generalized plans and
does not constitute complete environmental review. This discussion
serves only to highlight potential impact areas for decision-making
purposes. The EIR text addresses 15 issue areas. This generalized,
alternative analysis addresses the same 15 areas in matrix form,
Table 5-5 from the Draft EIR.
Table 5-5
OLYMPIC TRAINING SITE ALTERNATIVE
IMPACTS SUMMARY MATRIX
Potential Significant
No Impact Impact Impact
Geol ogy/Soil s X
Hydrol ogy/Groundwater/Water Qual i ty X
X
Biology
Archaeol ogy/Pal eontol ogy X
X
Air Quality
X
No i se
Conversion of Agricultural Land X
X
Landform/Aestheti cs
Land Uses/General Plan/Zoning
Community Social Factors X
Community Tax Structure X
X
Parks/Open Space
Util i ti es X
Transportati on X
Hazardous Waste/Risk of Upset X
City Planning Commission Page 13
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
2. Rancho San Miguel Alternative
This alternative involves the area including and surrounding the
northern side of the Mother Miguel Mountain in the northeastern-most
corner of the planning area. Under the proposed General Plan Update
this area is designated Open Space, due to the combination of steep
slopes, sensitive habitat and proximity to Mother Miguel Mountain and
the Sweetwater Reservoir. Mother Miguel Mountain, a volcanic rock
mountain, rises 1,525 feet above the Sweetwater River Valley.
Under this alternative the northern portion of the site is envisioned
to be a low density (average 1 D.U. per acre) residential planned
community of approximately 465 units. The residential product types
would be predominantly large single-family lots consistent with the
character of the existing Bonita-Sweetwater Community. A resort
center is contemplated for a 6.7 acre site which is envisioned as a
Bed and Breakfast Inn. An urban campground, possibly for use by such
groups as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, would be located on a 22.9
acre parcel in the north central portion of the site. The remaining
project area, over 1,600 acres, would be devoted to park and open
space uses which may include hiking trails, equestrian trails, and
habitat preservation with associated interpretive centers and
observation areas.
To analyze the potential impacts associated with this alternative,
the project boundaries have been placed on the six resource maps
created as part of this work effort. These graphics illustrate the
known geologic, soils and vegetation resources in the area, the
location of sensitive animal and plant species, and the areas of
potential paleontological and archaeological resources. The
potential impacts associated with the proposed alternative were then
identified given the resources known to exist at this time. It
should be noted that this impact analysis is based on conceptual,
generalized plans and does not constitute complete environmental
review. This discussion serves only to highlight potential impact
areas for General Plan decision-making purposes. The EIR text
addresses 15 issue areas. This generalized, alternative analysis
addresses the same 15 areas in matrix form, Table 5-3 from the Draft
EIR.
City Planning Co~ission Page 14
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 10, 1989
Table 5-3
RANCHO SAN MIGUEL ALTERNATIVE
IMPACTS SUMMARY MATRIX
Potential Significant
No Impact Impact Impact
Geol ogy/Soil s X
Hydrol ogy/Groundwater/Water Quality X
X
Biology
Archaeol ogy/Pal eontol ogy X
Air Qual i ty X
X
Noi se
Conversion of Agricultural Land X
Landform/Aestheti cs X
Land Uses/General Plan/Zoning X
Community Social Factors X
Community Tax Structure X
X
Parks/Open Space
Util i ti es X
Transportati on X
Hazardous Waste/Risk of Upset X
WPC 6217P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Stems for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-24; request to constr.u.~
a service station at the northwest corner ot East
Street and Otay Lakes Road UNOCAL Corporatio,
(continued)
A. BACKGROUND
The proposal is to construct a service station with gas pumps and auto
service bays on 0.68 ares located at the northwest corner of East "H"
Street and Otay Lakes Road in the C-C-P zone.
The item was continued at the request of the applicant from the meeting of
March 8, 1989, in order to resolve certain design issues prior to
Commission consideration of the CUP. These issues were resolved, and the
project was approved by the Design Review Committee on May 4, 1989.
The Environmental Review Coordinator is recommending the adoption of a
previous Negative Declaration, IS-87-68, which was issued for the Bonita
Point Shopping Center, and which reflects service station use of the site
in question.
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-87-68.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC_89-24,,,H,,to construct a service
station at the northwest corner of East Street and Otay Lakes
Road subject to the following conditions:
a. The Traffic and Engineering Planning sections require a bicycle
path on the north side of East "H" Street requiring:
(1) A dedication of 1.5 ft. of street right-of-way along East
"H" Street.
(2) A 5 ft. widening of East "H" Street to provide 42 ft. of
pavement westbound from the median curb to the northerly
curb.
(3) Behind the northerly curb, install a 4.5 ft. parkway and a
5 ft. sidewalk adjacent to the property line.
b. An on-site fire hydrant may be required subject to review and
determinati on of the Fi re Marshal i n conj uncti on wi th
construction plans.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North C-C-P Commercial Center
South R-1 Community College
East R-1 High School
West C-C-P Commercial Center
Existing site characteristics
The 29,500 sq. ft. site sits at the corner of the Bonita Point Shopping
Center. The property has direct access from East "H" Street and indirect
access from Otay Lakes Road off an entrance drive to the Center.
Landscape buffers reserved in conjunction with the overall shopping center
plan separate the site from the adjoining streets.
~roposed use
The proposal includes two pump islands and cashier's booth covered by a
1,900 sq. ft. canopy on the westerly portion of the site, and a separate
2,700 sq. ft. structure with auto service bays, an office, and storage and
restrooms on the easterly portion of the property. The plan also shows 13
off-street parking spaces, and an additional 5,500 sq. ft. of on-site
landscaping to supplement the 7,200 sq. ft. contained in the frontage
buffers.
D. ANALYSIS
Section 19.58.280 of the ~unicipal Code provides that service stations
shall clearly be required by public convenience, shall not cause traffic
hazards or undue congestion, and shall not result in a nuisance to
residences or other surrounding uses.
There is only one other service station within a reasonable radius of the
site--on the east side of Otay Lakes road, less than a half-mile south of
the property. Both are full-service stations which offer auto service as
well as gasoline sales. We believe this does not represent an
over-concentration of service stations considering the growth occurring in
the area and the general lack of auto service facilities east of 1-805.
As a result, we believe the proposal meets the public convenience
requirement.
Access to the site is as far removed from the intersection as possible in
order to minimize traffic conflicts. The estimated 900 average daily
reduce the
trips (ADT) expected to be generated by the station will not
present peak hour level of service "C" at the intersection. The most
recent ADT figures and the peak hour (7:30-8:30 a.m.) left turn movements
at the intersection are as follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 3
~verage Daily Trip~
"H", west of Otay Lakes Road: 35,780
East "H", 15,880
East east of Otay Lakes Road:
"H": 17,810
Otay Lakes Road north of East "H"' 16,100
Otay Lakes Road south of East ·
Left-Turn Movements at Peak Hour
Eastbound East "H" to northbound Otay Lakes Road: 399
Westbound East "H" to southbound Otay Lakes Road: 230
Southbound Otay Lakes Road to eastbound East "H": 94
Northbound Otay Lakes Road to westbound East "H": llO
The final requirement relates to nuisance impacts on surrounding residents
and uses. There are no residents within the immediate vicinity of the
site. Also, the station's point of access onto the entrance drive for the
Center is located well back from the street in order to avoid circulation
conflicts between the station and Center traffic.
The Engineering Department and Fire Marshal have reviewed the application
and offer the following comments for information only:
1. Sewer, traffic signal and development impact 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 not be limited to:
a. Alley type driveway approach,
b. Sidewalk ramp.
c. Curb, gutter and sidewalk.
d. Asphalt concrete paving.
4. A grading permit is required.
5. An excessive width driveway permit is required.
6. The vertical alignment of the driveway must conform to CVDS-5.
7. An agreement wi th the adjacent property owner for shared sewers and
access is required.
8. Provide detailed plans of underground tank installations. All
requirements of Article 79, Uniform Fire Code shall be met.
9. Provide detailed plans of waste oil disposal system from lube bays.
10. Provide fire extinguishers (2AIOBC) so travel distance does not
exceed 75 feet.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 10, 1989 Page 4
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 service station will provide a convenience to motorists and
residents in the vicinity of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road.
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 plan has been designed to avoid the creation of traffic
hazards and congestion.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposal complies with all conditions specified in the zoning
ordinance for service stations. Compliance with all applicable
codes, regulations, and conditions will be required prior to the
issuance of building permits.
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 General Plan recognizes the need for service stations at
appropriate locations convenient to the motoring public. The
proposal in question is considered to be such a facility.
WPC 6212P/2652P
AREA
J~r:::~gUE. ST TO 'CONST12.1JC,T J
~
i~
E~]
~3±N30 9NIddOHS Oi 3ON¥~IN3
8t1N13 9NIddOHS O± 33N~SiN3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
IAPPLICANT,S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONSI
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.
UNOCAL CORPOP, ATION SEE ATTACNED
120i,~T~ST 5TH~STREET "POWER OF ATTORNEY"
LOS ~GELES~ CA 90051 DOCtTi~fENT
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
NA
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.
LTNOCAL IS A CORPORATION-NOT ONE INDIVIDU~ OWENS MORE T~kT 10% OF THE SHARES
IN THE CORPOKA. TION.
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.
NA
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x If yes, please indicate person{s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receive~, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
necessary.)
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as ~~--~ ~ 12-12-88
Slgna ure o appllcant/oa~e
WPC 0701P ROBERT G. FAUDOA, JR. - PROJECT M~kNAGER
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
GAilY ENGINEERING, INC. - AGENT FOR UNOCAL
2207 GARi~ET AVE. - SUITE G
negative declarabon_-
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Pointe Shopping Center
PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: Sudberry Properties Inc.
4350 La Jolla Village Drive
Suite 210
San Diego, CA 92122
CASE NO: IS-87-68 DATE: November 9, 1987
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of a l0 acre parcel of land located at the
northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street and extending to
Ridgeback Road to the north. The subject property is currently vacant and
a small stand of second-growth eucalyptus trees are located at the corner
of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street. The project site ranges in
elevation from 463 feet above sea level at Otay Lakes Road down to
approximately 430 feet above sea level at the southwesterly corner of the
site. The project site is currently zoned C-C-P (Central Commercial
subject to Precise Plan approval) and with residential condominiums and
open space to the west, Ridgeback Road and Otay Lakes Road to the north
and East "H" Street to the south.
The site was graded a number of years ago and is therefore void of any
significant biological or archeological resources. There are no known
geological or other hazards present in the project's setting which would
adversely affect the project.
B. Project Description
The proposed development consists of the construction of a neighborhood
shopping center containing an approximately 105,000 sq. ft. of retail
commercial floor space in six separate structures. The main commercial
structure which will house a major supermarket and other smaller retail
shops contains 89,071 sq. ft. of floor area. The five satellite buildings
make up the remaining 16,000 sq. ft. The proposed project provides 532
parking spaces with an adequate circulation system featuring three access
points along Otay Lakes Road and two along East "H" Street.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan Retail
Commercial designation of the site and the C-C-P zoning of the property.
city of chula vista planning department CllY OF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
-2-
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Traffic
The project has the potential for both direct and long-term
cumulative significant traffic impacts. Access to the 104,796 sq.
ft. shopping center would be via East "H" Street and Otay Lakes
Road. The project is expected to generate about 5,135 daily trips
and about 510 during the PM peak (highest count) hour onto the street
system. The existing traffic levels plus the trips generated by the
project-related traffic could result in significant street service
level impacts; however, improvements proposed as part of, or related
to the project, will mitigate these potential effects and a good
level of street service can be maintained.
On a long-range cumulative level, depending on pending land use and
circulation planning decisions, it may be necessary to provide
additional capacity on Otay Lakes Road. Therefore, additional street
dedication along Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street is part of the
project. With these dedications, it will be possible for other
developers or the City with FBA fees to widen the streets when
needed. This approach will avoid any long-term cumulatively
significant traffic impacts.
2. Aesthetics/Visual Quality
Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are designated as Scenic Route in
the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The site plan, architectural
and landscape treatment of the development of the site is critical to
improve the aesthetics and visual quality of these scenic routes.
The property is zoned C-C-P (Central Commercial subject to the
approval of a precise plan by the Design Review Committee). This
zoning establishes a process which assures that the visual quality
along these scenic routes will be maintained. Thus any substantial
and negative impact will be avoided.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Traffic
a. A traffic signal will be installed on Otay Lakes Road/High
School drive/Shopping Center driveway, at the project's expense.
b. A traffic signal should be installed on East "H" STreet/ College
driveway/Shopping Center driveway, using FBA funds.
c. The project will implement frontage improvements along Otay
Lakes Road and East "H" Street. An additional ROW dedication of
5 feet to 11 feet is needed along Otay Lakes Road. An
additional ROW dedication of 1.5 feet is needed along a portion
of East "H" Street.
-3-
d. Otay Lakes~Road and East "H" Street should be planned as six
lane Prime Arterials with ll6 feet and ll9 feet of ROW adjacent
to the project. Improvements should be done by future ~rojects
or the City.
e. The Otay Lakes Road/East "H" Street intersection should be
planned to include three through lanes plus dual left-turn lanes
on each approach.
2. Aesthetics
The Design Review Committee will review the project to assure
compliance with the Scenic Route Element of the General Plan.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The project site has been graded and is void of any significant
natural or manmade resources. With the exception of traffic/access
all public utility services are available to the project. With the
mitigation built into the project, the direct traffic impacts of the
project can be avoided.
2. The process of Design Review will assure that long-term goals
relative to the Scenic Route Element of the General Plan will be
attained. The provision of necessary rights-of-way will assure
long-term circulation goals will be attained. Therefore, no
short-term goal will be attained to the disadvantage of long-term
goal s.
3. The provision of additional rights-of-way will assure that long-term
cumulative impacts will be accon~odated by the project.
4. The project will have to conform to all performance standards which
will preclude any significant emissions of air, liquid, solid,
hazardous, noise, glare or vibration impact which could significantly
impact human being.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler. Building and Housing Department
Carol Gore, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Brown, Leary Architecture & Planning
11545 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121
-4-
2. Documents ~
Chula Vista General Plan (all Elements)
Chula Vista Municipal Code
All staff and public comments on the Initial Study for this project
Rancho Del Rey Final Master EIR and SPA-I Supplemental'Final EIR
Bonita Long Canyon Estates Final EIR
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
city of chuia vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section CHL]L~
FOR 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 Bonita Point
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Northwest corner of
Otay Lakes Road and east "H" street
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 594.130.39
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of a 104)990 SF Retail/
Commercial ShoDning Center
4. Name of Applicant Sudberr¥ Properties Inc.
Address 4350 La Jolla Villaqe Dr Suite 210 Phone(619)546-5151
City San Dieqo State CA Zip 92122
Attn: James. A.. L~ary
5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~rown Leary architecture and Planninq
Address 11545 Sorrento Valley Rd. Phone(619)452-8544
City San Dieqo State CA Zip 92121
Relation to Applicant .Architect/Planner
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
X Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan X Grading Permit X Design Review Board
X Specific Plan X Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit X Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance __Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
X Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
X Site Plan Photos of Site & -- Biological Study
X 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
Etl 3 (Rev. 12/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Are'a: sq. footage 439,956 SF. or acreage 10.1 AC]
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
.1 AC. for Otas Lakes Rd. Street wideninq
2. Complete this section if project is residential.(N,A.]
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(~ of land use Commercial
b. Floor area 104.990 SF. Height of structure{s) 36'-0" Max
c. Type of construction used in the structure Wood frame on shops -
Masonry on major
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Median breaks
Otas Lakes Road East "H" Street
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 525 spaces
f. Estimated number of employees per shiftsho~sb~2, Number of
,P~ds/majors 2
shifts snops I Total 114 employees (62 of 2nd shift)
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
3,600 - Estimate by market and related to SANDAG ADT Projections.
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 3-5 miles -
normal supermarket criteria
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Drive
through uses at pads - otherwise none
j. Hours of operation 8 am - 12 midnight
k. Type of exterior lighting sodium
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
Normal traffic qenerated by service and retail uses
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated .yes
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? ~ 40,000 c.y.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? + 40,000 c.y.
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 95%
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 20'
Average depth of cut 6'
Maximum depth of fill 30'
Average depth of fill 4'
3. Describe all energY consuming devices which are part of the proposed
of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
t~ ~' -type
project and the. · ,, tc.) Heati~ . -
· rice. heating equipment_ e ~ ...... Refri~~upe_r
~arket.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project_
(sq. ft. or acres) none
result in any employment opportunities describe
5. If the project will of these jobs. Full ra~ of e~mpl~nt afforded
the nature and type
by commercial and service enter~eS~ ..
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? none
?. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 7350 - ( SANDAG 70/1000 SF - Ju~l 19~ --
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
limited to the following: new
site. Improvements include but not of gas, electric, and s~wer
streets; street widening; extension
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
street widening and intersec~t -~Ota~
-"H" Street & Southwest Colleae.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTI~G
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? y____es~
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made?
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrolog~y
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
(If yes, please explain in detail.)
site? yes
a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourseS or drainage improvements on or
Str_~ee~er --
adjacent to the site?
Exist 60" RCP storm drain @ S. corner of property @ drive off
'H' St.
- 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, on site private drains tying to exist, facilities
(see T.M. for locations)
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No - major street noise will mask any
project generated noise
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No, has been previously graded
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. Perhaps some
Globulus 2nd 9rowth eucalyptus trees.
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. vacant land
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Multi Residential/Vacant Commercially Zoned Property
South East "H" Street - Southwestern College
East Ota¥ Lakes Road - School
West Vacant/Multi Family Residential Vacant Land will be bu~ered
with open space
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 ~ould expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
I,I~V' Sudberry Propert/t'es, Inc.
I, James A. Leary, A.I.A.
/~cOWn Leary Inc or
onsultant or Agent*
~___~ ~-~_~ ~-~. signature
~H~E~-~FFIRM, tha~[~o ?h{ best of my belief, the statements and lnformat,on
y~'erein contained are in all re~pects true and correct and thai all known
J information concerning the project and its setting have been ~ncluded in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: June 1, 1987
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-lO-
Case No..~ ~--~
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to ~any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~ ~4~ ~
,
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation ~2~ ~,'~ ~:() ~ ~&&e~
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 compl etlon?
Before After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? __
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. __
- ll -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? ~-~t~.~ ~P~.~
Liquefaction? sf, dl? . !
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ty report necessary to evaluate tbe
project?
4. Soil s
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? N.~.
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) , Factor Pollution
CO '7~0 X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons ') 3~0 X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) ~'0 X 20.0 :
Particulates -)2 ~'~ X 1.5 /~'~2 ~
Sul fur -~2 ~'~ X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
~'~~ ~ve Date
City E~n ~neer or Representat'
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTM£NT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station add what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the~roppsed facility without an increase ,in equipment
" or personnel? ~.~J-Y ~ ·
-14-
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO. [~-~-~
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure?
A significant modification of any unique
geological features?
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards?
2. Soils
a. Does the project s'ite contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increa3e in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site?
A significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
- 15 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of §round water?
A significant alteration of direction or rate
of flow of ground water?
Any other significant affect on ground water?
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff?
Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either on-site or downstream?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
waves?
5. Resources
Could the project result in:
Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources ~,;hich can be
economically extracted?
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands?
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change,
in topography or ground surface relief features?
- 16 -
YES POTENTIAL
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke?
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality?
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
or State ambient air quality standard?
Interference with the maintenance, of
standard air quality?
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally? ..
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies {RAQS)?
8. Water Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public wa~er supplies? _.
9. Noise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources?
b. Could the project directly or ~ndirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels?
- 17 -
YES POTENTIAL
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife?
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemic species?
11. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological resource?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
Noise
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
- 18 -
YES POTENTIAL
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan?
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a new light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect existing housing?
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project?
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the followin§ services?
Fire Protection ...
Police Protection ,
Schools
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads
- 19 -
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy?
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy?
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources?
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas
Communications systems
Water
Sewer or septic tanks
Solid waste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard?
19. Transportation/Access
Could the project result in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns?
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level?
20. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-renewable natural resources?
- 20 -
YES POTENTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
§rowth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level?
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatiyely brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
- 22 -
K. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
JIt is recommended that the decision making authority find that
--the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
--although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for
consideration and adoption.
__ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will be necessary to
determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
Envlronmen~l Review Coordinator Date
WPC 0169P
Appendix C
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEP[iNT
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. ~m
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. ttave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards) Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes__No~)<~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)y~.d j~_ ~ Signature of app]icant/date
WPC 0701P '~//~.l/~:/,J -/7'.
A-110 Frint or type name of app)~cant