HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/04/12 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 12, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 22, 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: PCA-89-5: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal
Code to allow R-1-7 lots which measure less than sixty
feet in width to maintain side yard setbacks of five
feet - City Initiated
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-14: Consideration of the implementation of the
Montgomery Specific Plan for the area which is bounded
by Arizona Street to the north, Naples Street to the
south, Industrial Boulevard to the west and Broadway
to the east - City Initiated
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-15 and PCS-89-6: Consideration of a modification
to the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
and a tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Terra
Nova, Chula Vista Tract 89-6, located on the north side
of Hidden Vista Drive and Ridgeback Road, northerly of
Beacon Place and Woodhouse Avenue - Woodcrest Development
of San Diego
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Condtional Use Permit PCC-89-38: Request to establish
a temporary day treatment facility for developmentally
disabled adults at 255 Broadway - Lifetime Assistance
and Services, Inc.
AGENDA -2- April 12, 1989
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-39: Request to establish
a manufacturers grocery outlet at 650 'L' Street -
Canned Foods, Inc.
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of April 19, 1989
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Committee
Agenda Item for ~eting of April 12, 1989 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-89-5; Consideration of an amendment to the
Municipal Code to allow R-l-7 lots which measure less
than sixty feet in width to maintain side yard
setbacks of five feet - City initiated
A. BACKGROUND
The proposed amendment would allow R-l-7 lots which are less than 60 feet
in width at the front setback to maintain side yard setbacks of 5 ft. & 5
ft. rather than 3 ft. & l0 ft. as presently required.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-62,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implemented of the
project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-89-62.
The Montgomery Planning Committee considered the amendment at their
meeting of April 5, 1989, and voted unanimously 7-0 for approval of the
ordinance.
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-89-62.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the
following amendment to the Municipal Code:
Chapter 19.24
R-1 - Single Family Residence Zone
19.24.070 Area, lot width and yard requirements
Area, lot width, and yard requirements in the R-1 zone are as
follows:
(See Sections 19.16.020, 19.26.050, 19.16.060 and 19.16.080 for
exceptions and modifications.)
A. ~1 buildings, including accessory buildings and structures in
the single-family residence zone shall not cover more than forty
percent of the lot.
B. Minimum dimensions: The following minimum dimensions shall be
observed; provided however, that such dimensions may be modified
by the granting of a conditional use permit. The minimum
requirements shall be one of the following district
classifications as designated on the zoning map:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 2
Lot Yards in Feet
Classi- Area Width Exterior One Both
fication (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Front Side Yard Side Yard Side Yards Rear
R-l-15 15,000 85 25 10 l0 20 20
R-l-lO 10,000 70 20 10 10 15 20
R-l-7 7,000 60 15 10 lO 13 20
6,000 60 15 10 10 13 20
R-l-5 5,000 50 15 10 5 l0 15
C. R-l-7 lots which measure less than sixty feet in width at the
-- front setback shall maintain the minimum side yards as noted
above for the R-l-5 district.
C. DISCUSSION
The impetus for this amendment is the pending reclassification of single
family areas within the Montgomery Community from County RS7 to City R-l-7
zoning. The RS7 zone provides for side yard setbacks of 5 ft. on each
side, whereas the R-l-7 zone provides for side yards of 3 ft. on one side
and l0 ft. on the other side. Consequently, the reclassification would
render many of the lots within Montgomery nonconforming with regard to
established side yards. Additions to dwellings would either have to
conform with setbacks different from the dwelling itself, or property
owners would have to seek approval of a zone variance.
The problem is not unique to Montgomery. The R-l-7 standards were changed
from 5'/5' to 3'/10' in 1969. The purpose of the change was to establish
at least one generous side yard which, among other benefits, would provide
for vehicle access to the rear yard once provided by alleys. As a result,
there are many dwellings constructed in the City prior to 1969 which do
not conform with the present standard. The primary distinction is that
the vast majority of R-l-7 lots are 60 ft. or more in width, whereas many
RS7 lots are less than 60 ft. wide, and some RS7 neighborhoods consist
entirely of 50 ft.-wide lots.
The intent of the amendment is not to address all nonconforming sideyards,
but only those which involve narrower lots of less than 60 ft. wide. Many
of the pre-1969 R-l-7 lots, and many of the wider RS7 lots, are developed
with dwellings which are consistent with the 3'/10' standard, and we
believe these should be maintained. For wider lots with dwellings which
do not conform, the administrative variance procedure is available to
recognize the existing condition with respect to dwelling additions and
modifications without disturbing the basic, underlying 3'/10' standard.
The modification of the standard for lots of less than 60 ft. wide,
however, is something we believe should be recognized in the Code rather
than addressed individually via the variance procedure.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 3
As the width of a lot decreases below 60 ft., the total difference of 3
ft. between setbacks of 3'/10' (13 ft. total) versus 5'/5' (lO ft. total)
becomes more of a constraint to development. This is already recognized
in the Code for the R-l-5 zone, which allows for lots between 50-59 ft.
wide with setbacks of 5'/5'. The difference of 5 ft. on one side (10 ft.
versus 5 ft.) can represent an even greater hardship in terms of expanding
a nonconforming dwelling in a manner consistent with an existing floor
plan. Also, the amendment would apply almost exclusively to developed
lots constructed with less than a 10 ft. side yard and thus with no
ability to gain vehicle access to the rear yard, which is the primary
purpose of the 3'/10' requirement.
Because the nonconforming condition will become much more common with the
zoning reclassifications within Montgomery, more variance requests will
result without an ordinance amendment. Wi th regard to such common
conditions, the Code provides that "no grant of a variance shall be
authorized if the Zoning Administrator finds that the conditions or
situations of the specific piece of property is so general or recurrent in
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general
regulation for such condition or situation." The amendment represents the
general regulation to address what will be a recurring condition.
WPC 6123P
negative declaration_
PROJECT NAME: 5'/5' ZTA
PROJECT LOCATION: Throughout the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-89-62 DATE: March 7, 1989
A. Project Setting
Chula Vista Municipal Code Amendment.
B. Project Description
The proposed project is an amendment to Section 19.24.70 (Title 19,
Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code that will reduce the existing side
yard setbacks in the R-l-7 zone from 10'/3' to 5'/5' for lots of record
having 60' or less width at the front setback.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project is an amendment to an existing zoning ordinance which is
compatible with zoning and planning with the City.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Fire/EMS
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
2. Police
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Police
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
3. Traffic
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Traffic
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
4. Park/Recreation
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the
Park/Recreation threshold/standards policy does not apply.
city of chula vista planning department (ITt'Of
environmental review section CHU[A VISI'A
-2-
5. Drainage
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Drainage
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
6. Sewer
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the Sewer
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
7. Water
Upon review of the project, staff has concluded that the ~;ater
threshold/standards policy does not apply.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
Because this is only an amendment to a Zoning Ordinance, there are no
potential environmental effects from this project.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation will be necessary for the project.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause ~ fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
Because of the nature of the project, there is no potential to
degrade the quality of the environment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project has no potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals.
city of chula vista planning department CrlYoF
environmental review IICtlon.CHULAVISTA
-3-
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The project has no potential effects which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project has no potential for substantial adverse effects on
humans.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
Michael J. Mezey, Planning Intern
Applicant's Agent: Steven Griffin, 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Chula Vista Municipal Code
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 6032P
city of ch[~;: vlata planning department CITYO~
environmental rlvilw IICIIOrI.CHULAVISTA
FUR OFFICE USE
Case No. /_~
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.--'
Date Rec' d
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No. /:~
A. BACKGROUND
!']- t
l. PROJECT TITLE ~"J/5
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
Assessor~ Book, Page & Parcel No. --'=
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4. Name of Applicant
Address ~Phone ~
City ~_..~,~¢J~L ~i~.~c~ state
5. Name of Preparer/Agent~
Address _~'~t___~ Phone
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant~
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map m Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
"Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report -~Other
Approvals Required
EN 3 (Rev. 12/82)
19.Z4,070 Area, lot width and yard requirements.
Area, lot width, and yard requirements in the R-1 zone are as follows:
(See Sections lg.16.020, 19.16.050, 19.16.060 and 19.16.080 for exceptions and
modifications.)
A. All buildings, including accessory buildings and structures in the
single-family residence zone shall not cover more than forty percent of
the lot.
B. Hinimum dimensions: The following minimum dimensions shall be observed;
provided however, that such dimensions may be modified by the granting oF
a conditional use permit. The minimum requirements shall be one of the
following district classifications as designated on the zoning map:
Lot Yards in Feet
Classi- Area Width Exterior One Both
fication (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Front Side Yard Side Yard Side Yards Rear
R-l-l$ 15,000 85 25 l0 l0 20 20
R-l-lO 10,000 70 20 10 10 15 20
R-l-7 7,000 60 15 10 10 13 20
6,000 60 15 10 10 13 20
R-l-5 5,000 50 15 10 5 10 15
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consul tant or(~ or
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: ~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
~-- Case No.
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West
Does the project confom to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
ees~gnation on site:
North
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect' I~e'nd hance
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 Parkxs and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage regpirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? {If so, describe in detail.)
-9-
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. Hi gh
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features ~ue to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.)
S. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks: ~.~ ×x/~ ~£ s
V
ir~ctor of ~/Anning ~'r~Repre.sent~at~ve Date
- l0 -
Case
G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. ?atna~e
a. 'Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing floodtng hazards? ~Y.~.
c.' Wtll 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? /kJ,t~, .
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~J,/A~
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? AJ,/~
c. Wh'at 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, mO I~"/"~ ~/.~/~/-~'d/ '
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing Streets? )k/.~ ,
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- 11
3. ;eology
a.- Is the pro3ect stte subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazar.ds?
Liquefaction?. A/.~.
Landslide or slippage? Aj,A' ·
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? /A~/~7.
- 4. Soils ........
a. Are there any anticipated adverse, soil ~-~-dit~-~-~-p~CE
b. If yes, v/hat are these adver~'e soil c~ndit~'~ns?")J:/~:'
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~/~ ........
$. Land-Form-~-
a. What. !~_.t_h_e.average natural slope of the site? /~/.~ .
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? /~.
$. 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?
Case
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect atmtomobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
- Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
CO ~ X 118.3 ~
Hydrocarbons X 18.3
NOx (NO2) X .20.0 =
Particulates X 1.S =
Sulfur 'X .78
8. Waste Generation '.',
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ ~.f LiquiJ
I~hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? AJ~ ./x~/. ~.
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? /k~/.~., _
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
Cit~Fng~er o~ l~pr~sentative
-13(a)-
Case No. /~
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood ~]~
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council poli~?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
C
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 1
2, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-14 - City-initiated proposal to rezone certain
territory, generally bounded by Arizona Street, Naples
Street, Industrial Boulevard, and Broadway, from its
City-adopted "County-Zoning" classifications to the
"City" classifications utilized throughout Chula
Vista. The proposed specific rezonings, and thei)'
precise territorial limits are depicted on attached
Exhibit A.
The proposed rezonings are confined to the Harborside
subcommunity of Montgomery, and are governed by thu
Montgomery Specific Plan, adopted by the Chula Vistd
City Council on January 12,. 1988, under Resolution No.
13413, and on September 13, 198~, under Resolution No.
13780.
A. BACKGROUND
1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Harborside "A"
Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally
bounded by Arizona Street to the north, Naples Street to the south,
Industrial Boulevard to the west, and Broadway to the east.
Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted
County zoning to the City zoning classifications. Those are as
follows:
A. North of Moss (please refer to Exhibit "A")
M54 to I-L-P
M52 to I-L-P
S86 to I-L-P
RU29 to R-3
C36 to C-T-P
B. South of Moss (please refer to Exhibit "A")
M54 to I-L-P
M54 to R-3-P-9 (at the northwest corner of Colorado and
Naples)
RS7 to R-l-7
C34 to R-3
C34 to C-T-P
C36 to C-T-P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 2
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-88-4M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the
Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Study and
comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this
reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as
per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M.
3. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered PCM 89-14 at its public
hearing of March 1, 1989. The Committee unanimously approved PCM
89-14 and recommended its adoption by the City Planning Commission
and City Council.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no
significant environmental impacts re-adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-88-4M for the Montgomery Specific Plan.
2. Adopt a motion approving PCM 89-14 and recommend its adoption to the
City Council.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zonin9 and land use.
North I-L Industrial
South R-1 and C-C Harborside School and
commercial shopping center
East C-36 Commercial
West I-L-P, I-P and M-H-P Industrial/Commercial/Mobile-
home park
Existing site characteristics.
The project area is almost entirely improved with industrial, commercial
and residential uses. The area north of Moss is improved with
miscellaneous industrial uses, commercial uses fronting on Broadway, and a
175 dwelling unit apartment complex. The area south of Moss and west of
Colorado is improved with a relatively new commercial/industrial complex
and a fertilizer distribution facility at the northwest corner of Colorado
and Naples.
The area south of Moss between Colorado and Broadway is improved almost
entirely with approximately 200 single family residences. The predominant
lot size is 7500 sq. ft. Adjacent to Broadway are a variety of commercial
uses. Finally, there is a 28 unit apartment complex west of Broadway and
south of Moss.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 3
General plan.
The Harborside area is designated under four land use designations on the
Montgomery Specific Plan as follows:
North of Moss.
The area to be amended from the M52/M54 to the I-L-P zone is
designated Research and Limited Industrial.
The area to be amended from RU29 to R3 is designated High Density
Residential (18 to 27 dwelling units per acre).
The area to be amended from C36 to C-T-P is designated Mercantile and
Office Commercial.
South of Moss (west of Colorado) there are two land use designations.
The predominant land use designation as Research and Limited
Industrial is proposed to be changed from M54 to I-L-P.
At the northwest corner of Colorado and Naples, there is a 1-acre
parcel of land zoned M54 which is proposed to be amended to R-3-P-9
to be consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan land use
designation of low/medium density residential (3 to 6 dwelling units
per acre).
South of Moss (east of Colorado)
The areas proposed for a zone change from R-S-7 to R-l-7 is
designated low/medium density residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per
acre~.
The area proposed to be amended from C34 to R3 is designated high
density residential (18 to 27 dwelling units per acre).
The area proposed for change from C36 to C-T-P is designated
Mercantile and Office Commercial.
O. 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 1~, 1988. These zone reclassifications are
primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. The Plan also
goes on to identify the vulnerability of the residential enclave in
Harborside and the need to protect it from intrusion of incompatible
uses. These rezonings and the use of the precise plan modifying
district on the commercial/industrial parcels will assist in
protecting those existing residences.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 4
2. In the case of the proposed zone change from M52 and the M54 to
I-L-P, the proposed zone would prohibit any new outdoor storage and
sales yards which are not completely enclosed by solid walls, fences,
buildings not less than 6 ft. in height.
3. In the case of the proposed zone change from M54 to R-3-P-9, the
purpose of that change is to assign a zone to that property which is
more compatible to the adjacent residential and Harborside Elementary
School. It would also prevent expansion of the existing fertilizer
use as well as permit a residential density which is in keeping with
the density anticipated by the Montgomery Specific Plan.
4. In all cases except for the parcel at the northwest corner of
Colorado and Naples, the proposed zoning is our best attempt to
convert adopted-City County zoning to the City zoning without
adversely impacting the development capability of the properties.
WPC 5965P
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 EZR or Negative Declaration due
to the involYement of new significant environmental impacts not
considered in a previous £ZR 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 tn 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-~) was required. It
is the conclusion of the initial study that prior environmental review of the
Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88-4M continues to accurately
assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional
information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III.
Previous Project
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in
effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and
diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the
relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General
Plan.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the
proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan
diagram Pange from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential
zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are
constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses
permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities
to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within
Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for
the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford
Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present
deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed
retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as
property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast
corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic
mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis
of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning
and traffic concerns.
Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known
as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain
for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial
and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research
and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an
area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted.
Proposed Project
Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special
Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and
Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs
land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater
significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would
consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom
tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations
also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines.
Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision
controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts
and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings
called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be
undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review.
-2-
Analysi~
1. Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is
precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and whitelands
designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation is required at this time.
2. Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land
uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site.
Those areas include:
a. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential
densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant
land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy
industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited
Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those
uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the
use designation would foster industrial activities
proposed land ....... ~,,-'ties without the unsightly
em lo mens upvu.~-,,1 '
offerin other P Y ....... ~ ~m~ ' a o erations, no
characteristiCS ex~tlng_ ln.~,,..ha n. mitiqation ~s required.
significant adverse mpacts w,,. ~ ..........
c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing
established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the
Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since
implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the
requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate
mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant
impacts will occur and no mitigation is required.
d. Transportation/Access
Both Montgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals
to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area,
chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main
Street at industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue
to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude
implementation ~f the proposals pending support of traffic and
engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no
mitigation is required at this point.
-3-
e. Land Form/Topography
-The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. Further development for single
family residences may include significant alteration of existing
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant
environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future
review.
Conclusion
The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified
in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the
Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan
II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the
same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that
the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt
this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the
project.
WPC 5244P
-4-
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of
the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987
A. Project Setting
The 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, h. istorical
reference, and geographical place name. The subcommunitles are:
Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay,
and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.)
Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which
vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial
and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area,
and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial
land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown
in Exhibit B of this report.
Residential uses are distributed-throughout the planning area and occupy
878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses,
single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy
155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute
48 acres (3%).
Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted
to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences,
containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome
acreage.
Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within
I.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
environmental review section.
Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of
Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll ac res 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
ac res within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes
buildings for the community center and parking.
The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres
of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning
area is 100 acres.
There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant,
or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land
are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay,
amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include
151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club
for use as a golf course.)
Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are
suitable for development. The remaining 138 ac res are subject to
constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or
location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands.
Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within
the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which
contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that
currently permitted by zoning and any physical constraints which limit
permitted uses.
Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay
to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the
Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of
San Diego to the south.
B. Project Description
The Mohtgomery 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.
ll~e 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 Montgome~ 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 Montgome~ 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 "Whi tel ands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity
known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the
floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street
between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in
conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment
of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are
presently conducted.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically
express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
~roundwater/Drainage
There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through
the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay
River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining
into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental
impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of
this report.
1. Telegraph Canyon Creek
The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of
the Montgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of
Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona
Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J"
Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove
properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year
floodplain. The channelization project does not include
properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and
some areas which are not contained within a channel will
continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows
these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third
Avenue subject to further study) anU private country club to
signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain
designation. In addition, since the special study area requires
project specific environmental review to assess potential issues
with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects.
2. Otay River Valley
The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning
area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San
Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are
interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal
industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing
yards.
The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial
and a small area north of Main Street between Industrial
Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100
year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main
Street was developed with industrial buildings under County
regulations prior to annexation under development regulations
requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when
- - flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a
combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage
and industrial yards, intermixed wi th 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
permanent land uses.
The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay
River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under
this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted
until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands
determination studies, as well as development of a regional
park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to
review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding
designation pending resolution of complex environmental and
jurisdictional land use issues. As such, no adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the
proposals outlined in the plan.
Land Use/Social Displacement
There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan
proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses
which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These
areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street
and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main
Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and
Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del Mar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.)
These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or
people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in
land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows.
l) Brodericks Otay Acres
The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily
with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential
streets in combination with the use of private streets and
drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single
family uses.
In May of 1985, the zoning and General Plan for the County's
Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow
development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5
net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units
have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan
proposes to return the designated land use to single family
development with a density of no more than five dwellings per
ac re.
Since the proposeU 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 proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would
prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict
development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. A1 though
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 surrounUing 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-~conomic, 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.
tn addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
stuaies 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 8oulevard/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.
LanOform/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
~ssessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific
impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures
Manual for the City of Chula Vista.
Given these standard development regulations, no significant and
adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep
topographic conditions at the plan stage.
E. Project Modifications
Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas
is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and
whitelands designations, no mitigation is required.
Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses
which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on
site. Those areas are listed as follows:
A. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted
residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since
the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by
the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and
heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and
Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft
Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result.
However, since the proposed land use designation would foster
industrial activities offering other employment opportunities
without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and
dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will
occur and no mitigation is required.
C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy
Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with
existing established single family dwellings as part of a
proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus.
However, since implementation of the commercial land use is
precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences
and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study
area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
Transportation/Access
The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic
circulation through the Montgome~ area, chief among these is the
widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister
Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange
Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these
proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not
significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required
at this point.
Landform/Topography
The Woodlawn Park subcon~unity 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) "Telegrap~ Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps
of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March
1987
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September 1979
6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency,
June 15, 1964
7) Sout~ 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
10) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
N~EVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
WPC 4242P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHUL~
EXHIBIT A
../
"---~ EXHIBIT B
\
T
!
/
/
· EXHIBIT C
-,, ~,~ FUR UPFICE USE
Case No. IS-88-65M
Fee _
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by --
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A)
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the
three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or
regulator.¥ mechanisms which are designed to execute nr ~ff~rt.~tP the plan.
4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista~ Planninq Depar~men%
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
5. Name of Preparer/~gen$ DaNiel M. P~ss~ Principal Planner and
frank J. nerrera, Assls~ant V~%~%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
--X-Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
E~J 3 (Rev. 12/82)
3/3/88
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT
PART THREE PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1
B. Past Plan Implementation 1
C. Present Plan Implementation 2
D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3
A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4
1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4
2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5
3. Special Montgomery Regulations 6
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8
III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 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 MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PART THREE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation
The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of ~hree principal
parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan
proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends
analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of
the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general
objectives, policies, -principles, and planning and design
proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan.
Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms
which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains
the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the
Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text.
B. Past Plan Implementation
Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon
the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and
objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both
application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery.
Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on
general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning
needs of Montgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation
efforts in Montgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation,
subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary
land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery
Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and
-1-
missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General
Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust
formulated in conjunction with these issues.
C. Present Plan Implementation
Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula
Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's
administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula
Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and
general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan
calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more
identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
D. Proposed Plan Implementation
The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations"
· ' and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former
addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use
within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations
which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of
greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery
Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected
city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored
"Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special
Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban
design guidelines.
A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is
the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the
City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its
incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from
"County Zoning" to "City Zoning."
-2-
The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and
special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital
improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination;
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental
planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
It should be recognized that Part Three establishes an
Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The
rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be
undertaken separately.
II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS
A. Adopted County Zonin9 Plan/City 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 Controls
The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant
of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the
territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the
existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing
public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the
physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the
involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula
Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied
to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive
than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan
designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a
fundamental basis of the Implementation Program.
With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or
texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit
per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the
zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not
permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these
Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants
mentioned in the above paragraph.
The l~ontgomery 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 l0 dwelling units per acre.*
2. Proposed Zonin9 Amendments & Table of Translation
The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and
changes which are essential to the effective implementation
and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the
conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning.
The subject table is more than a compilation of recon~nended
County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide
for the direct translation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's
land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is
therefore called the "Table of Translation."
* Gallion & Eisner, in The Urban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is
(the) area exclusive of pub)lc 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 Re~oulations
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 Commission; and,
approved under the City's conditional use permit
process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use
development, residential land use shall not be
permitted in industrial or commercial zones.
(4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter
5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be
permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial
Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use
permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be
prohibited.
(5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of
the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula
Vista Design Review Committee, may authorize a
maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a
project proposed for development within an area
designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" (3-6
dwelling units per acre). This authorization must
be predicated upon the Director's finding that the
proposed project would be characterized by
outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not
become effective or operational in the absence of
its ratification by the Planning Commission.
The subject residential bonus would not be
applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior
Housing Development, as defined in Section 19.04.201
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies
for an affordable-housing density bonus under
-7-
Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government
- Code, or the provisions of the Housing Element of
the Chula Vista General Plan.
b. Height
The height of commercial and industrial buildings and
structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not
exceed two stories, or 28 feet.
c. Setbacks
All buildings constructed along the Main Street,
Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain
minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the
front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the
rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking
and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the
required setback areas.
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines
a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the
Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee
shall be 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 Montgomery. 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 (major) use permit
and design review processes. A directional sign
permitted under this provision shall not be located
within, or overhang a street right-of-way.
g. New development should reflect the basic design character
and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is
sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and
Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle
Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third
Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could
achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high
levels of urbanity and sophistication.
h. Architectural 'diversity and freedom should be encouraged
in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, however, will
necessitate a strong emphasis upon inter-project design
coordination.
i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture,
bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered.
These features could commemorate the history of the
involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence.
Vertical or roof-mounted structures which do not make an
important design statement should be discouraged.
III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
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 ~!ontgomery 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~rammin9
Chula Vista's )!aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major
capital improvements of citywide significance. The l~ontgomery
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 Hontgomery 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 Montgomery 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 c~uld be
stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and
zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing
programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program.
3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be
used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it
includes the remedies associated with conservation and
rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the
replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of
buildings; the r?latting of territory; and the expenditure of
considerable capital for public improvements.
Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled
by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public
improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment
financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within
Montgomery, such as West Fairfield, where land must be
marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most
practical remedy available is redevelopment.
-14-
E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program
The Montgomery Neighborhood~Revitalization Program (NRP) is a newly
instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining
well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical
facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program
include:
-- identification and prioritization of needed public capital
improvements;
-- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation
loan program;
-- public education on zoning, building and other City codes;
-- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up
programs.
The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in
limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered
prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for
target-area status:
-- need for public i~provements;
-- need for housing rehabilitation;
-- neighborhood character;
-- income status;
-- demonstration of local support for NRP.
-15-
IV. CONCLUSION
The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is
specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives,
statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the
Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses
the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition
to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The
program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's
organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban
center in question.
The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called
"incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day
application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally,
the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered
to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of
Montgomery and its several subcommunities.
WPC 4173P
-16-
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant' or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: . ~A, hk'm~._.]C~ / ~ . [q~
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
- - Case .o.
CI?Y DAIA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West -
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2.. General Plan land use
designation on site: ,.t~: '~
North J
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~['~
Is the project.located adjacent to any scenic routes? /!
]~r,I
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect'or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ,J
What is the current park acreage r~qui?ements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/1000 pop.) /0 >~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) .'~
· 3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) A~,~
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Dsrector of Planning or Rep~resentative Date
-lO-
Case N0. ~'S 8 8 '~o,~/[~
G. ~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~/~
b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any:flooding hazards? x~
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~,~/~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~y~//j
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~J~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~y/~
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? ~/~
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
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?
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
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 =
HOx {NO2) X 20.0 =
Particulates ~ 1.5 :
Sul fur ~K X .78 : /~
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~ Liquid ~
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? ~/A
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 Ei~gi ne~r ' oPJ R~i~re~nta ti ve ' Date '
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT .
l. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment
or personnel? . .- ~
.Remarks
- Case No.
X. FIRE DEPARTMENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? ~/~d/ '
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the proposed fa~lity without an increase.in equipment
3. ~emark% ~ ~'
~ire Marsha)
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONblENTAL 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 smite contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site?
A Significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources?
- 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
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?
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological'resource?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use
Circulation
Scenic Highways
Conservation
Housing
Noise
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Safety
Seismic Safety
Public Facilities
YES POTENTIAL
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan?
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community ,
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a new light
source or glare?
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site?
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area? V
The~j~ntial demand for additional housing
or[~?ect~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
- 19 -
-
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 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 Upse~
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~
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? L~
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level? ~
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, whil~ long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? {Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable 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 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~-~ACT 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.
Envi ronmenta~evi ew -Coordinator Date '
WPC O169P
City Planning Commission Page 1
Agenda Item for 14eeting of April 12, 1989
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PC~1-89-15 and PCS-89-6: Consideration of a
modification to the Rice Canyon Sectional Planninu
Area (SPA) Plan and a tentative subdivision map known
as Woodcrest Terra Nova, Chula Vista Tract 89-6,
located on the north side of Hidden Vista Drive and
Ridgeback Road, northerly of Beacon Place and
Woodhouse Avenue - Woodcrest Development of San Diego
A. BACKGROUND
This item includes a modification to the Rice Canyon SPA and a tentative
subdivision map for 26.3 acres located on the north side of Hidden Vista
Drive and Ridgeback Road, northerly of Beacon Place and Woodhouse Avenue.
The property is presently designated as a junior high school site. The
proposal is to redesignate and subdivide the property into 86 single
family lots, and expand and enhance Terra Nova Park which adjoins the site.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-53,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the )legative Declaration
issued on IS-89-53.
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-89-53.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the modification
to the Rice Canyon SPA Plan and the tentative subdivision map for
Woodcrest Terra Nova, Chula Vista Tract 89-6, subject to the
following conditions:
a. A l0 ft. level width shall be provided between back of sidewalk
and property line for all lots which back-on or side-on to
Ridgeback Road, Hidden Vista Drive, and the easterly side of
Street "A" at the entry to the project. These areas shall be
shown as separate lettered lots to be dedicated to Open Space
Maintenance District No. ll.
b. Grading and construction plans shall provide for access to a
majority of the upper Park ball field facilities during
construction. Safety fencing and measures shall be provided
where necessary.
c. The developer shall install a temporary tot lot within the Park
to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation
within 30 days of approval of the tentative map.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 2
d. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements
have been reached with both school districts regarding the
provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project
prior to approval of the final map.
e. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water District
with regard to the provision of terminal water storage and other
major facilities to assure water availability to the project
prior to the approval of a final map.
f. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require
compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
g. A maximum of 33% of the lots within the project may provide
sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. and 5 ft. for three-car garages
provided the lots are developed in compliance with the other
provisions of Resolution No. 13426 (Council three-car garage
policy). This allowance assumes all lots will be developed with
three-car garages, and that garage conversions shall be
prohibited on all lots.
h. The property line on Lot 1 shall be located at the top of
slope. A decorative slumpstone noise wall shall be established
within the park along the common boundary with Lot 1 to the
front setback line.
i. The view wall along the rear of lots 1-16 shall be located
within the park. The owners of lots 1-16 shall sign a statement
when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the view
wall is on City property and that they may not modify or
supplement the wall or encroach onto City property.
The lO-ft, width of landscaping and decorative fence at the rear
of lots 73-76 shall be installed by the developer and maintained
by the owners of the lots as reflected in the CC&R's. The
CC&R's shall also require a consistent design and high level of
maintenance for this area. All other lots within the project
shall be included as parties to the enforcement of these
provisions as reflected in their own CC&R's. Gates shall be
installed at the rear of lots 73-76 to provide for maintenance
access.
k. The CC&R's shall contain private fence standards for slopes and
top of slopes, subject to review and approval of the Director of
Planning.
1. The retaining wall illustration and notation shall include a
maximum height limit of 7.5 ft. for retaining walls. The
restrictions on retaining walls shall be included within the
CC&R's.
m. The project entry treatment shall be subject to review and
approval of the Director of Planning. The Park entry treatment
shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Parks
and Recreation.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 3
n. The developer shall dedicate to the City of Chula Vista for
public use Streets "A" though "E" as shown on the Tentative Map.
o. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full
street improvements in all streets shown on the Tentative Map
wi thin the subdivision boundary. Said improvements shall
include, but not be limited to: asphalt concrete pavement,
base, sidewalk, curb and gutter, sewer and water utilities,
drainage facilities, street lights, signs and fire hydrants.
p. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in
accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, the San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and
the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista.
q. All lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street. Drainage
shall not be permitted to flow over slopes.
r. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and
maintenance easements along all public streets within the
subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line l0 feet from
the back of sidewalk.
s. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the City
Engineer. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be
prepared as part of grading plans.
t. All knuckles and cul-de-sacs shall be designed and built in
accordance with City standards.
u. The developer shall submit evidence acceptable to the City
Engineer to demonstrate that the dry-lane requirements are met
along all the streets within the subdivision.
v. The developer shall obtain notarized Letters of Permission for
all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit
for work requiring said off-site grading.
w. The developer shall provide for the perpetual maintenance of the
sewer pump station to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
x. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to
detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission
of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished
on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and
the Grading Ordinance (#1797 as amended).
y. The developer shall provide hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations demonstrating that the drainage system in Lot "C"
is capable of accepting the additional drainage due to
development and is capable of accepting additional drainage, if
any, to be diverted from Hidden Vista Drive and Ridgeback Road.
z. All drainage facilities within the subdivision boundary that are
proposed to be abandoned shall be shown on grading plans and
done in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 4
aa. Subsequent to approval of Final Subdivision Maps, building
permits for development of the subject property may be withheld
if traffic volumes, levels of service, utilities and/or services
exceed the adopted city-wide threshold standards.
bb. The developer shall be responsible for repayment of construction
costs for the Rice Canyon sewer in accordance with Resolution
11574 until such time as repayment in accordance with said
resolution is completed.
cc. Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he
holds the City harmless from any liability for erosion,
siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulting from his
project.
dd. All proposed streets within the subdivision shall meet City of
Chula Vista Street Design Standards including, but not limited
to: horizontal curves and intervening tangents and maximum
grades at the proximity of street intersections.
ee. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
subject to approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation,
which will specify the type and level of park improvements to be
made by the developer, at a cost not less than $850,000. Said
improvements may include the following:
Installation of ball field lights on the two softball fields.
Two lighted tennis courts; viewing station; hitching post
and water trough; improvements to the existing equestrian
trail; tot lot(s) with play structures for primary and
secondary children; fitness station cluster; jogging path;
parking lot; security lighting; gazebo and community
gathering facility; picnic shade structures with picnic
tables and benches; and multi-purpose fields.
- The park improvements will be subject to review by the
neighboring residents and Parks and Recreation Commission,
who may recommend minor additions or deletions to said list
of improvements.
The following are map revisions and Code requirements submitted by the
Engineering Department:
a. Map Revisions
(1) Show the existing drainage system from Lot 87 to Lot "C".
Indicate whether this is to be abandoned, replaced or
utilized.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 5
{2) Show the existing tree planting and maintenance easements
adjacent to Hidden Vista Drive and Ridgeback Road.
b. Code Requirements
(1) The developer shall plant trees along all dedicated streets
within the subdivision. The species, location and number
shall be determined by the City Engineer.
(2) The developer shall pay Eastern Area Development Impact
Fees prior to issuance of building permits. The amount of
said fees to be paid shall be that in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits.
(3) The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation Fees
in accordance with City Council Policy prior to issuance of
building permits.
(4) The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees,
including but not limited to Sewer Connection Fees, prior
to issuance of building permits.
(5) The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final
Map and all plans shall be in accordance with provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the
Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista.
(6) All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City
of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797
as amended.
C. DISCUSSION
Property Status
The 26.3 acres is a surplus junior high school site which is the subject
of a purchase/resale agreement between the City, Sweetwater Union High
School District, and Woodcrest Development. Woodcrest's development
proposal was recommended by a staff committee and chosen by the City
Council over 13 other proposals submitted by eight separate bidders for
the property. The agreement conveys no vested development rights--the
Woodcrest proposal must comply with all subdivision review procedures.
Existin9 Site Characteristics
The property and surrounding areas are zoned P-C, Planned Community, and
are within the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area of the E1 Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan. The site sits astride a prominent hilltop with
expansive views to the north and west. Previous grading has created three
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 6
large pads which step-down from south to north and east to west. A
15.6-acre neighborhood park site (Terra Nova Park) adjoins the west and
north boundaries, and a permanent open space lot abuts the site on the
east. Single family homes are located to the south across Hidden Vista
Drive and Ridgeback Road.
Terra Nova Park totals 15.6 acres with five usable acres adjoining Hidden
Vista Drive, and an additional 10.6 acres of unusable slopes to the
north. The five usable acres are divided into two pads--a 3.6 acre pad
adjacent to the street, and a lower 1.4 acre pad to the north. The park
contains a multi-purpose ballfield/soccer field, fitness (par course)
stations, a restroom facility, and open turfed play areas. No offstreet
parking is provided.
Development Proposal
The 26.3-acre development proposal includes 86 single family lots on 24.8
acres (3.5 du/ac), plus a 1.5-acre expansion and overall enhancement
program for Terra Nova Park. The residential portion will be regraded
into tiers which step-down from southeast to northwest in order to
maximize views to downtown San Diego and Coronado. The project will have
two access points--one on Ridgeback Road and one on Hidden Vista
Drive--with internal circulation provided by a primary loop street and
four short cul-de-sacs. Due to the topography, the project will be served
by a pump sewer system.
The developer has proposed the following street names for the project:
Street A: Westview Drive
Street B: Parkside Drive
Street C: Parkside Court
Street 0: Westview Place
Street E: Westview Court
The park expansion/enhancement proposal includes adding 1.5 usable acres
directly to the east of the existing usable area, and raising the lower
1.3-acre park pad to the same level as the larger southerly pad. An
offstreet parking area for approximately 50 cars would be established at
the easterly end of the park with access off the proposed loop street.
The enhancement proposal also calls for $850,000 in park improvements,
including multi-purpose fields, tennis courts, tot lot, viewing station,
community gathering and picnic facilities, and improvements to the
existing exercise course, equestrian trail and hitching post (please see
attached exhibit). A development agreement is being drafted by the City
Attorney's office to address timing, development of facilities, and any
waiver of park fees.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 7
D. ANALYSIS
The subdivision map, precise plan, and park expansion enhancement proposal
are simply refinements of Woodcrest's earlier successful bid proposal.
The residential density of 3.5 du/ac is consistent with adjacent areas
which range from 3.3 to 5.1 du/ac, and the lots, which average just over
lO,O00 sq. ft. in area, meet all of the dimensional standards of the R-1
zone. Following is a discussion of additional features and specific
issues.
Landscaping/Fencing
Several of the residential lots back-on or side-on to Ridgeback Road,
Hidden Vista Drive, and the easterly side of Street "A" at the entry to
the project. These areas will have a 10 ft. width from the back of
sidewalk with a decorative wall fronted by landscaping under the
jurisdiction of an open space maintenance district. Four lots which
back-on to the interior loop street will also be treated with common
landscaping and a decorative fence. The staff recommendation is to place
the maintenance responsibility for this area with the four involved
property owners under the CC&R's, and to include all of the project's lots
as parties to the enforcement of this provision.
The fencing plan also includes decorative fencing at all exterior
sideyards, view fencing at the rear of the lots along the westerly and
northerly boundaries of the project, and solid wood fencing along the
easterly boundary. Retaining walls are shown at several locations
interior to the project with a notation and illustration which requires
split walls for any sections which exceed 6 ft.-high for more than 20
lineal feet. Staff has also recommended a maximum height of 7.5 ft. An
additional condition would require the CC&R's to contain private fence
standards in order to provide continuity at the prominent slope and
top-of-slope locations.
In addition to the landscaped areas noted above, the developer will also
install landscaping at exterior sideyards and the major interior slopes--
the large slopes on the south and east boundaries already contain mature
planting which will remain. Entry treatments are proposed for both the
project and the Park. These will consist of decorative walls and
identification signs--at the southeast corner of Ridgeback and Street "A"
for the project, and at the southwest corner of Hidden Vista and Street
"B" for the Park.
Dwellings/Setbacks
The precise plan shows building footprints which reflect three-car garages
on all of the lots. The dwellings will meet all of the bulk and setback
standards applicable to R-1 developments with the exception of sideyard
setbacks. In 1988, the Council adopted a policy for P-C zoned
developments which allows a maximum of 20% of the lots within a project to
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 8
reduce sideyards from 3 ft. & lO ft. to 5 ft. & 5 ft. for dwellings with a
three-car garage. Woodcrest is requesting an exception to the policy to
increase the allowance from 20% to 33%, or from 17 to 28 lots. The policy
was adopted on the basis that the primary purpose of 3'/10' sideyards is
to provide for vehicle access to the rearyard, and that a three-car garage
can offset this need to a significant degree by providing an additional
enclosed parking space. The additional space will generally not
accommodate larger RV's, but it can substantially reduce the clutter of
on-street and driveway parking by cars, smaller RV's, and boats. The
policy also contains provisions which require the reduced sideyards to be
level, and that a minimum of lO ft. be maintained between dwellings. No
garage conversions are permitted, and specific locations are subject to
staff review.
Earlier discussions on the policy centered around projects which would
provide a mix of two and three-car garage plans, and which would only use
three-car garages if sideyards were reduced. Woodcrest, on the other
hand, proposes all three-car garages but with reduced setbacks on only 33%
of the lots--resulting in what should be a much less cluttered street
scene than the typical 3'/10' two-car garage project. As a result, we
have recommended approval of the request subject to the other provisions
of the policy.
View Obstruction
An adjacent resident at 506 Beacon Place (southwest corner of Beacon Place
and Hidden Vista Drive) has requested that Council impose conditions on
the project which would prevent an obstruction of the existing view from
that home. The Council referred the matter to staff for a report to be
brought back at the time the project is formally considered.
The developer has prepared exhibits which indicate that the project--
primarily the dwellings proposed for lot numbers 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60--
will have a view impact, especially from the first floor level, on the
existing views from 506 Beacon Place; the most significant view being that
to the northwest, across lot numbers 58, 59 and 60, and beyond to Downtown
San Diego (please see attached exhibit). The developer is also in the
process of preparing a comprehensive view study for presentation and
discussion at the Commission meeting. This study is expected to show that
the project will have little if any impact on the view of the remaining
dwellings along Ridgeback Road and Hidden Vista Drive--either because they
don't presently enjoy a view, or because elevation differences will
generally maintain the views "over" the project.
In regard to the view obstruction from 506 Beacon Place, the pads on lot
numbers 56-60 are reportedly as low as possible because of the need to
meet existing street grades at Ridgeback Road and Hidden Vista Drive. The
only other alternatives are to (1) reduce the height of the dwellings on
these lots from two to one-story, (2) prohibit development on these lots
altogether, or (3) redesign the subdivision, including the street system.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 9
Alternative 1 would be by far the least expensive of the alternatives, but
would still obstruct to some degree the first floor view from 506 Beacon
Place, and would also represent a deviation from the two-story dwellings
proposed for the balance of the project.
The developer does not favor any of the alternatives, or, at a minimum,
believes that any of the alternatives should be coupled with a
renegotiation of the $5.9 million purchase price of the property. They
argue that the project will have a minimal impact on views as a whole,
that the larger, institution buildings of a junior high school would
likely have impacted views to a greater extent than a single family
project, and that at no time were unobstructed views across the project
site guaranteed to those dwellings on the opposite side of the street.
Woodcrest will be prepared to discuss these issues in detail at the
meeting.
There are no established planning or environmental policies or regulations
for the protection of private views. The issue is not addressed in the
General Plan, or the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, or in the City's
zoning or subdivision regulations. The strongest language on the subject
of views is contained under the General Design Guidelines of the ERDR
Specific Plan, which states that "The terrain also permits views from
homes. Homes should be sited to maximize the potential views." Also the
California Environmental Quality Act does not consider the obstruction of
private views as a potentially significant impact.
In actuality, however, the City does consider the protection of existing
views when reviewing projects. At the staff level, this involves review
by developers to determine impacts and solutions which could be
significant to surrounding residents. Also, the Council has in the past
conditioned the approval of projects on reducing the height of certain
dwellings in response to specific issues of view obstruction and/or
privacy, and has also included view preservation as a goal or guideline
for future development on specific sites under the "P" Precise Plan
modifying district.
In the present case, the project has been designed in a manner which
preserves the views for a majority of adjacent residents, which may or may
not have been the case with a junior high school. The decision ultimately
comes down to balancing the competing interests. Is it equitable to limit
development to one-story or preclude construction altogether on three to
five lots--or require a major redesign of the subdivision--in order to
partially or totally preserve the view from a nearby residential lot. Due
to the unique circumstances of this project, the City, or more accurately,
the SUHS District, has the opportunity to subsidize the preservation of
that view through a reduction in the purchase price of the property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page l0
Park Plan
The developers have met with surrounding residents and local equestrian
groups regarding the park enhancement proposed. There are several issues
yet to be resolved with these groups before the park plan goes forward to
the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. None of these
issues, however, will effect the subdivision map or the precise plan for
the residential development.
Two issues related to the subdivision review process would offer a slight
reduction to the original acreage contemplated for park expansion. First,
the portion of Street "B" between Hidden Vista Drive to just beyond the
park entry has been widened from 56 ft. to 60 ft. in order to accommodate
the increased traffic generated by the park in a safe and comfortable
fashion. Secondly, a condition has been recommended which would adjust
the boundary and wall between the park and lot no. 1 to the top of slope,
in order to increase the privacy for this lot. The street widening
involves 2,300 sq. ft., and the lot line adjustment involves 1,050 sq. ft.
Two additional issues related to park usage, and agreed to by the
developer, include maintaining access to a majority of the upper
ballfields and facilities during construction, and also the installation
of a temporary tot lot at the earliest opportunity. These have been
included as conditions to the map, with the requirement that the tot lot
be installed within 30 days of approval of the tentative map by the City
Council.
Elementary school
The project vicinity is currently served by Allen Elementary School which
has a capacity of 651 with an attendance of 477 students. This project
will also be served by the Chula Vista Hills Elementary School which
opened for its first students January 23, 1989. When the transition from
the "host" schools to the Buena Vista site is complete, there will be
about 322 students at the facility. The capacity, given a standard school
schedule, is 600 students. If a year round schedule were imposed, the
capacity would increase to 900 students.
It is estimated that the project will generate about 26 elementary school
aged students.
Although the elementary school district is operating over its current
permanent capacity, through the use of relocatable classrooms and the
development of new schools through Mello-Roos community facilities
districts, the elementary school district appears to be keeping pace with
development. This year two elementary schools will be opened; Chula Vista
Hills as noted above and a site currently under construction in the Hills
Community of EastLake.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page ll
It should also be noted that implementation of these measures is under the
authority of another jurisdiction, the Chula Vista City School District
and not the City of Chula Vista.
Secondary school s
The project site is located within the attendance areas of Bonita Vista
Jr. and Sr. High schools. The current capacities and enrollments are as
follows:
SCHOOL CAPACITY
School Relo's Permanent Total Enrollment (10/88)
BV Jr High School 240 1,284 1,524 1,525
BV High School 300 1,632 1,932 1,740
Overall the Sweetwater Unioa High School District (SWUHSD) has an
enrollment (10/88) of 26,845 students with a permanent capacity of 22,648,
2,880 relocatable classrooms and 1,020 students in trailers.
It is estimated that the project will generate about 9 middle school and
17 senior high school aged students.
Early in 1989 grading/construction began on the high school site in the
EastLake project and the SWUHSD has a 3-4 year planning development
schedule for a junior high school facility on a Rancho del Rey site.
On both an interim and lon9 range basis, the SWUHSD plans to maximize the
utilization of senior high schools through the use of relocatable
classrooms and support facilities and by changing to a four year program.
This would allow the current three year junior high schools to become two
year mid-schools with a resultant increase in overall "capacity." The
district is also considering the utilization of year around school
schedules although that policy decision has not yet been reached.
The district has established five Mello-Roos community facilities
districts which have produced the financial resources necessary to develop
the physical facilities to provide secondary educational services. The
SWUHSD is proceeding with the planning and construction of these
facilities along with other programs to better utilize existing facilities.
It should also be noted in this case that implementation of these
mitigation measures are under the authority of another jurisdiction, the
Sweetwater Union High School District.
E. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Woodcrest Terra Nova, Chula Vista Tract 89-6, is found
to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan
based on the following:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 12
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements, which have been designed to avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use: The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan (GPA-83-7)
provides that surplus school sites may be used for residential
uses of a type and density compatible with adjacent property.
Woodcrest Terra Nova is a single family project at a density of
3.5 du/ac, which is consistent with the density of surrounding
single family neighborhoods which range from 3.3 to 5.1 du/ac.
b. Circulation: The project will be served by public streets which
conform with all City standards. The entry street, which will
serve as access to the Park as well as the project, has
additional width to accommodate the increase in traffic.
c. Housing: The project will provide housing consistent with that
of surrounding neighborhoods. The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan specifies lower densities within the general area of the
project in recognition of the lower density communities to the
north.
d. Conservation: The site has previously been graded, and there
are no cultural or biological sites or resources known to exist
on the property.
e. Park Recreation and Open Space: the project will result in a
significant expansion and enhancement of the Terra Nova Park.
The ERDR Specific Plan includes large areas of permanent open
space to compensate for development areas.
f. Seismic Safety: A "potentially" active fault trace is located
just to the east of the site and through one of the residential
lots. Typically, mitigation measures beyond standard grading
and site preparation are not required for single family
structures due to the presence of a potentially active fault.
g. Safety: The project will be required to provide on-site fire
hydrants in order to compensate for a somewhat extended response
time. A future fire station on East "H" Street will improve
response times. The Police Department can provide an acceptable
level of service.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 13
h. Noise: The project will be required to meet the standards of
the City's noise ordinance for acceptable interior noise levels.
i. Scenic Highway: The project is not located adjacent to a scenic
route or gateway. Measures will be taken to enhance the
existing street scene where rear and side-lot conditions occur.
j. Bicycle Routes: There are no designated bicycle routes on or
adjacent to the site.
k. Public Buildings: The developer will be required to reach
agreement with the school districts regarding the provisions of
adequate facilities to serve the development prior to the
approval of a final subdivision map.
WPC 6117P
PAi~ I~
F~ROJECT AREA
HID
ii
A,C, & D
tive
nega declaration
PROJECT NAME: Woodcrest/Terra Nova
PROJECT LOCATION: Hidden Vista Drive/ Ridgeback Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc.
CASE NO: IS-89-53 DATE: March 30, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project site is located east of 1-805 and north of East "H" Street in
Chula Vista. The 26.2 acre parcel is located westerly of the intersection
of Hidden Vista Drive/Ridgeback Road. The site is part of the Rice Canyon
Sectional Planning Area and is known as Hidden Vista Village (Terra Nova).
The site had been designated as Terra Nova Lot "D" School Site; however,
the school district declared this parcel as "not-needed" and sold the
parcel as excess property. The site had been rough graded in anticipation
of development as a school site.
Land uses in the vicinity are primarily existing or planned for
residential uses. Open space uses are also to the north and east. The
remainder of Hidden Vista Village SPA is to the south and west, while
Rancho del Rey SPA is to the east.
B. Project Description
The proposed project includes the construction of 86 single family
residences on 26.2 acres of land resulting in a net density of 4.33
dwelling units per acre (3.28 dwelling units per gross acre). All lots
exceed the sizes required by theR-1 zone standards.
The residential development will include three parking spaces per lot and
of the 24% roads and pavement.
Grading for the project includes approximately 80% of the site, including
157,500 cubic yards of excavation and 70,700 cubic yards of import. The
maximum cut and fill is 9 and 18 feet, respectively. An average of 4 feet
of cut and fill will occur. Offsite improvements include contour grading
for the public park site located to the west of the site to accommodate
proposed playing fields.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The site has been designated as a school site, under the Planned Community
Zoning of the property. The project is inconsistent with the City of
Chula Vista's General Plan land use designation for that location. It
should be noted that the Sweetwater Union High School District through the
City of Chula Vista sold the land to the developer as a residential site
recognizing that the site was not needed as a future school location. ~.~I~
city of chula vista planning department CI'h'OF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
-2-
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Fire Station is located two miles from the site with an estimated
response time of eight minutes, which exceeds the standard of
seven-minute response for 85% of the cases. The Fire Department has
indicated that they will be able to provide protection to the site
without an increase in equipment or personnel. A future proposed
fire station facility located on East "H" Street will improve
response times.
As a condition of approval the building permit will provide on-site
fire hydrants to be located according to the requirements of the Fire
Department.
2. Police
The police department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of
service based on the threshold standard.
3. Traffic
The project would be served by Ridgeback Road and Hidden Vista
Drive. The project proposes 86 single family residences, which can
be expected to generate 860 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing'
ADT is 450 on Ridgeback Road. No numbers are available for Hidden
Vista Drive. The proposed ADT would then be 1310. Levels of Service
are not available for either Ridgeback Road or Hidden Vista Drive.
The primary roads are adequate to service the project and no
additional improvements are required. East "H" Street and the
intersection with Hidden Vista Drive will not be significantly
impacted with this additional traffic.
4. Parks/Recreation
There are inadequate existing neighborhood parks to serve the site;
however, future development within the Rancho del Rey Community Park
will provide adequate community park facilities. Additionally, the
developer is required to expand and improve the existing Terra Nova
park site adjacent to the development (see project description).
With the expansion of the adjacent Park facilities, the project will
not exceed the thresholds standards for Parks and Recreation.
5. Drainage
Existing drainage facilities to serve the site include a grate inlet
inside a desilting basin to a concrete energy dissipator, several
check dams and brow ditches. The project is not located in a
floodplain or subject to any existing flooding hazards. Construction
of the project will increase the amount of runoff; however, the
existing drainage facilities are adequate to serve the site.
-3-
6. Sewer
Approximately 2,258 pounds of solid and 24,080 gallons of liquid
waste will be produced daily. An eight-inch sewer main is located
within Hidden Vista Drive, flowing westerly. The existing sewer main
is adequate; however, because the sewer main is located at a higher
elevations than the pads, a sewer pump station will be required.
7. Water
Water will be provided by Otay Water District. The addition of the
proposed project would not affect the threshold policy.
8. Geolo~ and Soils
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was completed for the
project site in February 1989. A "potentially" active fault trace of
the La Nacion - Sweetwater Fault Zones has been recognized trending
north-northwesterly just east of the site. One of these fault traces
passes through the westerly portion of the site (Lot 1). In the
opinion of the geotechnical consultant, the fault should be
considered "potentially" active (movement within the last ll,O00
years).
Approximately 60 feet of fill overlies the inferred fault trace. The
geotechnical report states, "This depth of fill would probably tend
to attenuate any fault rapture offset if it occurred on the
underlying fault." Typically, mitigation measures are not required
for single family structures due to the presence of a potentially
active fault. The remainder of the inferred fault is located within
the park or roadway development.
The site had been determined by the registered geotechnical engineer
suitable for development with nominal and relatively standard
earthwork and site preparation procedures.
9. Schools
Approximately 26 elementary, 9 middle and 17 high school students
would be generated by this project. The project is located within
the Allen School attendance area of the Chula Vista City School
District. Schools in this district are at capacity and the District
has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two years to serve
the growth. Bussing is being utilized to alleviate the overcrowding
and to achieve ethnic balance. Current developer fees of $0.6? per
square foot may be inadequate to provide facilities for this
development. Alternative forms of financing, such as Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District, will be pursued in this area east of
1-805.
-4-
The Sweetwater Union High School District has indicated that students
from this property would be served by this school district.
Cumulatively, the development east ~f 1-805 has created the need for
a permanent school. The District has requested that the development
be conditioned upon the developer satisfying district plans for a
secondary school. Current developer fees of $0.85 per square foot
may be inadequate to provide facilities for this development.
Alternative forms of financing, such as Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District, will be investigated.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Geology
"Potentially" active faults are located within the project site. The
depth of fill (approximately 60 feet) and the length of time since
this fault has exhibited movement indicate a limited potential for
significant faulting to occur. Single family structures for this
type of faulting do not typically require additional mitigation
measures; therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
2. Land Use
The proposed project site was designated a school site. The proposed
project is inconsistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan
designated land use for that site. The site was not needed as a
school site, and the Sweetwater School District through the City of
Chula Vista sold the land as a residential site. The proposed
project is inconsistent with the designated land use of the area;
however, it is not considered significant. The proposed project is
compatible with adjacent land uses.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Geology
"Potentially" active faults are located within the project site. The
depth (approximately 60 feet) and the length of time since this fault
has exhibited movement indicate a limited potential for a significant
faulting to occur. Single family structures do not typically require
additional mitigation measures for this type of faulting; therefore,
no additional mitigation measures (other than remedial grading) will
be required.
2. Land Use
The proposed project site was designated a school site. The change
in land use designation of the site to single family residential is
not in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. The
land uses are consistent with the adjacent land uses and zoning. The
General Plan will require an amendment. No mitigation measures are
required.
-5-
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
Although the project has the potential of significant environmental
impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significance through
measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached
Initial Study.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project conforms to the long-term goal~ of the City as identified
and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The project site is located within a master planned community. All
impacts to the surrounding community will be incremental and will not
cause significant growth in the surrounding community to occur.
Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative
impact.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project site is not within a lO0-year flood plain. There are no
known hazardous materials on the property. The project will not emit
any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact
human beings.
-6-
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Jim Dyar, Fire Marshal
Shauna Stokes, Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Chula Vista City
School District: Kate Shurson, Director of Planning
Sweetwater Union High
School District: Thomas Silva, Director of Planning
Applicant's Agent: Dan S. Biggs
Biggs Engineering Corporation
2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 121
San Diego, CA 92123
2. Documents
The Chula Vista General Plan
The Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista EIR-79-3
Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area
Environmental Impact Report
City of Chula Vista EIR-83-2
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
Amendment Environmental
Impact Report
Shepardson Engineering AssOciates, Inc.
Preliminary Report of: Geotechnical
Investigation Woodcrest-Terra Nova
Chula Vista, California
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
VIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 6026P
city of chula vlata planning department CI1YOF
environmental review iictlon.CHULAVI~TA
FOR OFFICE USE
Case No.
Fee ~n/~, .~o
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No._~_~__
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~_~
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE TERRA NOVA
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) /1~ o~/ ~
r
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. N/A (OWNED BY SCHOOL)
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT OF 86 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS.
4. Name of Applicant WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
Address 5473 KEARNY VILLA ROAD, SUITE 210 Phone (619) 277-9810
City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip 92123
5. Name of Preparer/Agent BIGGS ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Address 2245 SAN DIEGO AVENUE, ~121 Phone (619) 298-5641
City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip 92110
Relation to Applicant CIVIL ENGINEER
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 -X-- Grading Permit -- Design Review Board
Specific Plan ~ Tentative Parcel Map __ Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit ___ Site Plan & Arch. Review
-- Variance ~ Other (GENERAL DEVELOPPtENT
~L/~N/SPAMOD)~
b. Enclosures or documents ~as requlreoDy the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map Arct~. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
_~x~ Grading Plan' -- Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
-X Site Plan . -- Photos of Site L Biological Study
-'-Parcel Hap -- Settins -- Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map l:oiso Assessment
Specific ?lan In~provt~;~ent Plans lraffic Impact ReporC
-- Other Agency Permit or Soils Repor~ ~ther
Approvals Required
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 1,141~000 ± or acreage 26.2
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family 86 LOTS Two family 0
Multi family 0 Townhouse 0 Condominium 0
b. Number of structures and heights 86 SINGLE FANILY HOMES (1 ~ 2
STORY)
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 0 2 bedrooms 0
3 bedrooms 36 ~ 4 bedrooms 50 · Total units 86
d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 3.28 DU/AC
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 4.33 DU/NAC
f. Estimated project population 301 ±
g. Estimated sale or rental price range UNDETERklINDED
h. Square footage of floor area(s) UNDETERMINDED
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 45%
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 3/LOT
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 2q % +
Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s} of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
e. t~umber of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift Number of
shifts Total
g. £st~meted nun;be~ of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
j. Hours of operation
k. Type of exterior lighting
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.
CARBOI~IOMOXIDE~ DUST
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:) YES
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? 157~500 C.Y.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 70,700 C.Y.
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 80%
d. What will be the - ~aximum depth of cut 9' ±
Average depth of cut q' ~
Maxi~:~um depth of fill 18' +
Average depth of fill q' +
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
{sq. ft. or acres) NONE
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs.
6. Will highly flan=nable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? NO
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? UNKNOV~q
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: nev~
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
NONE - PROJECT IS WITHIN A MASTER PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE1-FING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made?
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? {If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? NO
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? NO
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
NO
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? NO-SITE DRAINAGE SYSTFJqS ALRF_~Z)Y EXIST, BUT WILL
BE IMPROVED BY P~OJECT.
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. CITY STANDARD PUBLIC DF~AINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAYS.
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? NO
4. Biolog~
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
NO-IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A SCHOOL SITE. THEREFORE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY
ED.
b. ~nRAd~lcate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(i f any) will be removed by the project. NONE
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? NO-Tn "rHF ~F~T OF Ot~R KNOWIFF)C~F.. NO HISTORiCAl
RESOURCES ARE LOCATED NEAR OR ON THE PRO~ECT SITE,
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO H~ARDOUS
MATERIALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF OR STORED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT
SITE.
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. THE EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONTAINS NO STRUCTURES
AND THE LAND HAS NO CURRENT LAND USES. EXISTING PROJECT SITES
LAND USE IS AS A SCHOOL SITE, HOWEVER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS
DECLARED THE PARCEL "NOT-NEEDED" AND IT HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE PUBLIC
FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North CITY PARK (OPENSPACE)
South SINGLE FAblILY RESIDENTIAL
East
West CITY PARK SITE
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) NO
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) NO
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
Owner/owner in escrow*
DAN S. BIGGS//j or
Consul tant o~__~nt~
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Ca se No. / ~ -~-- ~
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West
Doe~ the.project co~form to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site:
North
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated ~or conservation or open space or adjacen~
to an area so designated? ~(~ ~_~_~- ,~.~2-Z~ ~ J~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? (~; ~_~
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ~ ~ ~
How many acres of parkland ace necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) /~ -~ ~ ~ .
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) /~_~-~
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary ~!~-~ /-J ? ~ ~ ~/ .g.~
Jr. Hi gh "~- / ~'".2,_.5" / ~"2 % cf
Sr. High 'E~' 5~ 17~ i~.~ 7
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) ~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year) ~_,~~J~ '
Water (per day) ~/~
6. Remarks:
irec~o~of Planing or Represent_~_O~ Date
-10-
Case No. -~-~
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. .Dra ina ~e
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any ~flooding hazards~ ~0 m ~
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~K~ ~m/~ ~m~)~[~ ~ ~4~lf/n~
Are they adequate to serve fhe project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~ F~ ~~ ~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project~
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
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 he~es~ary actions. ~
-ll -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
K~nown ,or suspected fault hazards? ~. 'zD + I,i,, ~ --.
Liquefaction?~. ~/~ .
Landslide or slippage? ~0' ~ ~1
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils ~ ~ ~ ~o~t-
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? ~m~m~J ~. 6EArn
5. Land Form ' ~ "
a. J'~at is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What ~s the maximum natural slope of the site? ~'O
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify tha~ a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? ~ .
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 ~60 x 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons ~,~0 X 18.3 = 1~
NOx (NO2) ~60 X 20.0 =
Particulates
Sul fur ~60 ~ 1.5 :
~60 X .78 : 670-~
8. 'Jfi~e Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Uhat is the location and size of existin sewer l' -
to the site? ]m ~m~f ~]~ ~.'~---- .lnes o~ or adjacent
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact ~~- ~.
'If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City ~ ):rresenta ti ve .
-13-
Case' No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? j~ ~,/~!
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an'adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?
FQ/e Marsh~q 'Dat~ /
-13(a)-
Case No../~_~,~_,_~%f
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~_ ~(~ ,~ ,~?~,~ 1o~~~
Community park~ ~/A
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Threshold~Ov~
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date/
Representative
BOARD OF EDUCA~ON
J(~E~ D.CU~JNG~, ~.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK & JUDD
JUDY ~HUL~BERG
FRA~K~TARANTINO January 9, 1989
SUPERIHTENDENT
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula ¥ista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula ¥ista, CA 92010
Re: Case No. Is-8g-53
Pro~ect Applicant: ~oodc~est Development of San Diego, Inc.
Pro~ec~ Description: Developmen~ of 86 single family residential
lots
Dear ~r. Reid:
Schools in the Chula ¥i$~a City School *Distric~ are at capacity and
~he District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over the past two
years to serve new growth. Students are being bussed outside their
attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation. Bussing
is also utilized to assist in achieving ethnic balance.
Please be advised that this pro~ect is in ~he Allen School attendance
area. The current developer fee of 67¢ per square foot of habitable
living space may be inadequate to provide facilities for this
development. The District would certainly be willing to discuss the
possibility of a ~el;o-Roo$ Community Facilities District as an
alternate for~ of financing.
~f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
$~ncerely,
Kate Shurson ~
Director of Planning
KS:dp
JAN I I ~989
Sweetv ater Union High SchooT District
January 4. 1989 'JAN 9 1989
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
Case No.: IS-89-53
Location: Ridgeback Road off East H Street
Description: Development of 86 single family residential
lots
Applicant: Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc.
The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater
Union High School District and payment of school fees per
Government Code 65998 would be inadequate to meet the school
needs of the development. Development east of Interstate 805
has created the need to construct new, permanent school
facilities. The district has been working with developers in
the establishment of Community Facility Districts to provide
school housing for students generated from new residential
construction.
The Sweetwater Union High School District requests that the
approval of this project's tentative map be conditioned upon
the applicant's ability to satisfy district plans for
providing secondary school facilities in this region.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate
to contact me at 691-5553.
Res p~tfully,
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sly
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF 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.
Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc.
Fullerton Savings & Loan Association
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Same as "1" above
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than I0% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
John Wertin of Woodcrest Development of San Diego~ Inc.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
soc-~-~-f~-T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, t~~r, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other grou? or combinat~c~g ~ unit/~
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as n~cessary.)/~~/~
Si~nat~r~of appTic~n~/date
Ronal~/Jy ~an Daele, Vice President
WPC 070lP Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc.
A-llO Print or type name ~cant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page #
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-38; request to establish
a temporary day treatment facility for developmentally
disabled adults at 255 Broadway - Lifetime Assistance
and Service's, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a request to establish a temporary day treatment facility for
developmentally disabled adults at 255 Broadway. The Environmental Review
Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-67, of potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project.
Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the
Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-89-67.
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-89-67.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion that the City Council approve the request, PCC-89-67, to
establish a day treatment facility for developmentally disabled
adults at 255 Broadway, subject to the following conditions:
a. The permit is approved for one year, to expire on April 12,
1990. An extension may be granted by the Zoning Administrator
based upon a finding that circumstances have not materially
changed and that plans for a permanent location are proceeding
expeditiously.
b. The use shall operate within the parameters outlined in the
application without the prior written consent of the Zoning
Administrator; namely, hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., and a maximum of 15 staff and 24 clients at any one
time.
c. All activities, both indoors and outdoors, shall be well
supervised and monitored so as not to create an adverse impact
on surrounding uses or residents. Failure to comply with any
condition or complaints shall cause the permit to be reviewed by
the City for additional conditions or possible revocation.
d. Plans shall be submitted for all signs, and for the treatment
and screening of the patio from the parking area and alley,
subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 2
e. This permit represents land use approval only. The use must
comply with applicable codes and regulations, including those of
the Fire Marshal and the Department of Building and Housing,
prior to the issuance of building and/or occupancy permits.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North C-T Commercial
South C-T Commercial
East R-3 Multiple Family
West C-T Commercial
Existing site characteristics
The project site is a ll,400 sq. ft. commercial property located at the
southeast corner of Broadway and Davidson Street. A 5,700 sq. ft.
building presently occupied by Leo's Stereo is located on the front of the
site, with 22 parking spaces located to the rear (east) of the building.
Access to the parking area is provided from Davidson as well as an alley
which adjoins the rear of the property.
Proposed use
The proposed use is a day care/treatment program for developmentally
disabled adults, which includes those with mental retardation, epilepsy,
cerebral palsy, autism, and neurological impairments. Lifetime Assistance
is a non-profit public benefit corporation, and the services it offers are
funded by the State of California and the Federal government. The program
is described in the attached information sheet.
The program involves non-residential day treatment only. It would
accommodate 15 staff (10 full-time and 5 part-time) and 24 clients between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Clients come from their own homes or
group residential facilities, and are transported to and from the site by
three vans, which also serve for regularly scheduled off-site trips and
activities under the direction of a recreation therapist. The exterior of
the structure would remain unchanged. The interior would be modified to
include training rooms, offices, restrooms, and a larger general-purpose
room. A small, covered patio with table and chairs is proposed but not
shown at the rear of the building.
The proposal is to use this site for an interim period of 6-12 months
while a permanent facility is being constructed in the EastLake Business
Center. The program must be in operation by June 30, 1989, in order to be
assured of State and Federal funding for the next fiscal year. The
permanent facility will also require a conditional use permit subject to
review and approval by the Commission and Council.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 3
D. ANALYSIS
We believe this is an appropriate use for this location. The program will
provide an essential service, and although the facilities as a whole are
less than optimal, they are designed to be adequate on an interim basis.
For instance, there should be a significantly larger and better protected
outdoor area to provide for the on-site leisure and recreational needs of
the clients. But this issue and others can be addressed with a permanent
location, the feasibility of which is dependent upon establishing the
program at an interim location before the end of the fiscal year.
It should be noted that the approval of this permit should not be
construed as an endorsement of a permanent facility within the EastLake
Business Center. A permanent location will be evaluated on its own merits
under a separate conditional use permit.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The site will provide an appropriate interim location for the
provision of services which are essential to developmentally disabled
adults within the community.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The use consists of a day care/treatment program with no detrimental
environmental effects. The staff to client ratio indicates that the
program is well-supervised for the benefit of clients as well as the
surrounding community.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The use shall be required to comply with all applicable codes,
conditions, and regulations prior to the issuance of building and/or
occupancy 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 proposal is consistent with General Plan policies which encourage
a full range of facilities and services to address the needs of all
sectors of the community.
WPC 6115P/2652P
ALLEY
LIFETIME
ASSISTANCE:& SERVICES, INC.
'225 BROADWAY
CHULA VISTA. CA
BROADWAY
~//.~ · ~-'/~:' ~'..'~;~
.. LIFETIME -DAY
i A ISrANCE
TREATMENT
PROGRAM
1 CLINTON STREET BROCKPORT, N.Y. 14420
DESCRIPTION
~e ~y ~t Pr~ is a Vi~l ori~t~ ~el is u~z~ for ass-
~t ~ ~e c~ of ~t, ~ice p~g~l~
cu~,~i~ ~s~ ~y pr~=~%'~ ~d ~ ~h ~s~ ~ ~ ~-
vidal P~ P~ (~P) for ~ch
~sid~l s~ic~ for ~ cli~t. ~ ~ys foll~g c~t
wi~ d~~l ~hili~. a~ssi~ ~e ~t~al ~P ~vel~
It p~ides ~ ~st ~ive ~d
c~sive ~ge of ~y p~ ~ ~ ~ is ~t~ ~vi~.
~e ~P ~1~ a p~ori~z~ p~
s~ices to~e s~ly or ~ply bl~ ~d asset list, g~ls, ~j~-
~~ ~vid~ls ~ ~ not ~v~, ~, ~ r~le,
n~ 24 ~ ~e or ~a] ~
visi~ ~d ~ ~ ~ci~te ~ ~ ~t~-~, f~ of s~ice,
a p~ at asiteo~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~ p~s ~ ~ ~ r~
~. ~i~d ~i~ of ~s
~id~ce. IPP ~ec~ at )~a~t ~m~ly.
. R NAM GOATS
ADMISSION CRITER
~e ~y ~e o; ~e o~ ~ ~o1- a~h~. ~s ~D~;
eT~si~ f~, ~ ~~ ~ ~-~o~ ~ age of 18.
~ve ~v~m~% of a ~,¥~ B. A ~ or ~te a~p~ve
~ ~y p~ ~ r~i~e. ~vior d~it d~t~ by a
s~z~ ~vior ~ale
· ~~ of ~te or ~ ~ ~ifies as~ ~ ~ici~
~~li~. ~ ~e or ~re of ~ foll~ life
· ~si~ ~ a l~s ~sive ~vi~
l~ei of ~y p~ ~ as ~y t~,~ ~g
... ~g, ~ ~ ~vi~, or e~e~d~t ~v~g
~t~ ~r~. . S~f~~
e~si~ ~ a l~s ~t~ive C. ~ ~d~l n~ assis~e
~h as f~ cu~,,~ ~i~e i~ ~t~ ~ ~g~g ~1
~ a ~is~ a~. ~fa~s wi~ ~e g~l
e~e ~ p~s ~d (e.g. ~g ~1 f~ces,
pr~t r~r~si~ of ~~g ~g n~g~ s~ for
~ ~f-~e, cu,,~, p~g ~ o~cu~,~ re~) ·
1~, ~ili~, ~1~, ~- D. ~ ~v~,m] ~ cu,~le~ly
de~t liv~g ~lls, ~i~ ~t ~ ~s for ~g~t of
d~o~t ~d ~1~ ~s/h~ ~1 affairs wi~ ~e
~vioral s~t~ for ~se ~le g~l
~ ~si~ ~ a l~s
sire ~,,'~'~i~ ~ ~y p~
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Lifetime Assistance & Services Day Care Facility
PROJECT LOCATION: 255 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA
PROJECT APPLICANT: Lifetime Assistance & Services, Inc. (LASER, Inc.)
CASE NO: IS-89-67 DATE: March 29, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project site is currently developed with a brick/block building,
parking lot and covered loading area. It is accessed from both Broadway
and Davidson, and also from the alley to the immediate east. There is
on-street parking on both Broadway and Davidson Streets. The project site
is occupied by a stereo shop and is surrounded by development. Broadway
is located to the immediate west, west of which are car sales and a shoe
repair. The site is bounded on the north by Davidson Street, north of
which is a bar. The back (east side) of the project site includes an
on-site 7-space paved parking lot, 6 parking spaces are located in the
alley and an additional 3 spaces are located on the west side of
driveway. A covered loading area can accommodate another 6 vehicles.
Beyond (east of) the parking lot there are multi-family residences. The
project site is the northernmost portion of a building that is currently
used for a variety of services--a restaurant, beauty salon, insurance
agency, etc.
B. Project Description
The project is proposed by Lifetime Assistance and Services, Inc., a
non-profit public benefit corporation which promotes the general welfare
of persons handicapped with ~mental illness, mental retardation,
developmental disabilities, and related impairments. The project proposes
to use the building space currently occupied by Leo's Stereo for a
temporary daytime care facility for the developmentally disabled. This
facility will provide services on an interim basis. The EastLake Business
Center is under construction for the permanent location. It is expected
that the building would be used for approximately 6 to 12 months. The
proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project area includes 10,890 square feet, including the 5,700
square feet within the existing building. The building covers
approximately 50% of the site, while the remainder is comprised of the
covered loading area and parking lot in back. The proposed care facility
would require approximately 15 employees and would provide care for
approximately 24 to 40 persons. The facility would be open from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
L city of chula vista planning department CITY O~
'" environmental review section CHUL~ VI A
-2-
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate the project site
for Commercial Thoroughfare uses. The current Draft General Plan includes
the same designation. The purpose of the C-T zone is to provide for areas
in appropriate locations adjacent to thoroughfares where activities
dependent upon, or catering to, thoroughfare traffic may be established,
maintained and protected. The regulations are designed to encourage the
centers for retail commercial, entertainment, automotive and other
appropriate highway-related activities. Because the proposed care
facility is not one of the listed uses for the C-T Zone, it will require a
Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project is compatible with the existing Zoning and General
Plan designations, and with adjacent land uses. It is appropriately
located on a major thoroughfare and has adequate access.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within seven minutes in 85% of the
cases. The current project site is within 1 mile of the nearest fire
station and service to the site is expected to have a two-minute
response time. Therefore, the project site is considered to be
compatible with the City's policy. The project applicant will be
required to submit building plans and specific information to the
Fire Department regarding the type of clients to be served
(ambulatory or not).
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to emergency calls within five minutes in 75% of the cases
and within seven minutes in 90% of the cases. The City Police
Department anticipates no probl ems in serving the project.
Therefore, it will be compatible with the City's policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period of
less than 2 hours per day. In the worst case, the project could
generate approximately 500 trips, bringing the ADT on Broadway to
roughly 24,590. At this level, a LOS "C" would still be maintained.
Therefore, the project is compatible with the City's policy.
-3-
4. Park/Recreati on
The Threshold/Standards Policy is not applicable to the proposed
project because the project will have no impact on parks and
recreation; the clients/patients will be cared for on the premises.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and
volumes must not exceed City engineering standards. The existing
on-site drainage facilities consist of gutter flow on Broadway and
Davidson Streets, and these are considered adequate to serve the
project. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with the
City's policy.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
must not exceed City engineering standards and individual projects
must provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City engineering standards. Existing sewer facilities in
the project area include a 12-inch main in Broadway and a 10-inch
main in Park Lane. These are considered adequate to accommodate the
estimated 1,600 gallons per day expected to be generated by the
proposed project. Therefore, the project is compatible with the
City's )ol icy.
7. Water
The project site consists of a building which already has water
service, llqe water requirements are not expected to be significantly
greater than the existing requirements.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
All potential impacts are expected to be less than significant.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
The following mitigation measures need to be implemented during the design
construction of operation of the project.~ The Fire Department needs to
receive specific information from the applicant on the clients (whether
they are ambulatory) and needs to review the building plans. The Fire
Department must be satisfied that the applicant has met all Chula Vista
Standards for Fire Protection.
-4-
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
desc~bed above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The project site does not involve any rare or endangered species nor
the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista
and therefore, will not achieve any short-tern goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The project is minor in nature and will conform to the General Plan.
Any cumulative impacts will be very minor in nature.
4. The environmental effects .ofa project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project will not result in any hazardous substances, noises,
vibrators, or emissions.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, Environmental Coordinator
Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Sohaib A1-Agha, Engineering Dept.
Bill Wheeler, Building and Housing Dept.
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Dept.
-5-
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
San Diego County Water Authority: Chris Duncan
Sweetwater Authority: George Silva
Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva
Applicant's Agent: Rick Dowe, Iliff Thorn
Ken Gotthelf, Iliff Thorn
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan {Draft)
Reprint of Title 19, Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September
1988
Zoning Map of Chula Vista
General Plan Land Use Element Map, 1970
Draft General Plan Land Use Element Map
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
~~RDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 6105P
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
,- environmental review aaction. (~HU[A VIST^
,, ~ ~'~ FOR OFFICE
INITIAL STUDY Receipt~No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.~'
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Lifetime Assistance & Services Day Care Facility
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)
255 Broadway Street. Chula Vista. CA
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 567-053-01
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Day Care Facility providing high
quality care and services to the developmentally disabled. This is
an interim facility during the construction of a permanent facility,
4. Name of Applicant Lifetime Assistance & Services, Inc.
Address 374 N. Highway 101 #C Phone 436-5930
City Encinito~ State CA Zip 92024
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Rick Dowe/Ken Gntthmlf nf Iliff~ Thn~n ~ Anm?ny
Address 4660 La Jolla Village Driw #?nD Phone (6lq) ~-~
City San Diego State CA Zip q9l??
Relation to Applicant Real Estate Broker~ r~pr~nting lif~m~ ~tance.
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning --Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit __Design Review Board
-- Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
I Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey'
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
EN 3 (Rev. 12/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage. 10,890 or acreage
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
N/A
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family. Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use General ~nmmmriral
b. Floor area. 5~700 Height of structure(s) l? Fe~t
c. Type of construction used in the structure Concrete Bln~k
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Building is
located on the southeast corner of Broadway and David~on. AcceR$ from
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 20 both streets.
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 15 , Number of
shifts 1 Total l~
g. Estimated number of c-~ (per day) and basis of estimate
clients
There will be a maximum of 24 cli~nt~ in the f~nility
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate The South Bay
area of San Diego and primarily Chula Vista.
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings N/A
j. Hours of operation 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday
k. Type of exterior lighting No specific needs
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
N/A
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Standard office HVA£ svstem,
kitchen appliances and washer and dryer.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) N/A
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. clerical~ nursinq.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? No
7. Now many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 36 ADT. - 15 emplo.yees @ 2 trips/day and 3 client vans @ 2 trips/di
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
N/A
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? N/A
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? N/A
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? N/A Iii yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? N/A
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? _. N/A
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
N/A
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? N/A
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. N/A
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. N/A
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? N/A
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? N/A
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Existing structure approximately 5,700 square
feet of building are~ currently occupied by Leo's Stereo.
-6-
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
South {SA:,.<~ ~ ~, c~<,~,.~ ~, ~' ~',,. ~-s~,.' ,t
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?)
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
See Enclosed
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
~ 'C'onsultant or Agent~
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. ~S- ~o~_/o'7
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARll4ENT
1. Current Zonln9 on site:
North
South
East
West ~-~-
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site:
North
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? lb~O
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
th9 scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ~,
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
. (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~\~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) ~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) -~
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Director o~)anning or Representative
.... Y'5-
- l0 -
Case NO. "V'~-- ~q-67
Go ENGZNEER~NG DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? /~N/~.)
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~y.~i~.~o/gfacilities? ~/z.'/'~?~ '~'[~/ ,On ?~rOO_~U~ ~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? _~
f. What is the location and desc?iption of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~y~7~ _~)~} ·
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~
2. Transportation
a. Wh. at 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)? ~00
c. Wh'at is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.O.T. ,Z . qo
uo.s. ~,
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
Case No. 'CS - q-67
3. fieology
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. Isa soils report necessary? _/L/Fi . ~-;(rJlk~
5. Land Form'
a. What is the average natural slope of the site? ~'~7
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. ~S--~:~-~ 7
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 : 5~r-~
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 :
[lOx (NO2) ~00 X 20.0
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur ~ X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
L q. d /600
~ha~.is ~he_locat~on and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacen
Ate ~hey adequate ~o serve ~he p~oposed p~ojec~?
9. Public Facilities/Resources ~mpac~
[f ~he p~ojec~ could exceed ~he ~hreshold of having an~ possible
sign~fican~ ~mpac~ on ~he environment, please ~den~fy &he public
facilities/resources and/o~ hazards and describe ~he adve~s~ ~mpac~.
([nclude any potential ~o a~a~n and/o~ exceed ~he capaci~ of any
public s~t~e~, sewe~, culvert, e~c. serving ~he p~o~ec~
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures _/t//~x]~ .
Ci~cy ~gineer~or Representative Date
- 13-
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire s~ation _and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? /
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for thee,proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?
F Da~e I /
-13(a)-
Case No.
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council po~i~?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
~arch 20, 1989 ~AR Z
Nr. Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Nr. Reid:
CASE NO: IS-89-67
DESCRIPTION: Interim day care facility for the
developmentally disabled.
LOCATION: 255 Broadway
APPLICANT: Lifetime Assistant & Services, Inc.
If the above subject project requires the construction of new
building space payment of commercial/industrial school fees
will be required. Fees are not required for tenant
Improvements which do not result In new habitable area.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 691-5553.
Res~fully,
Thomas Silva ~' ~
Director of Planning
TS/sly
CHUI,,,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST"J STREET · CHULAVlSTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 o 619 425-9600
BOARD OF E~CAT~N
DR JOSEPH D CUMMINGS
OPAL FULLER
SHARON GILES
JUDY~HULENBERG
F~NKA. TARANTINO Narch 17, 1989
SUPERI EN 2 2 1989
ROBERTJMcCARTHY
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No: IS-89-67
Project Location: 255 Broadway
Project Applicant: Lifetime Assistance & Services,
Inc.
Project Description: Day care facility for develop-
mentally disabled
Dear Mr. Reid:
Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are
at capacity and the District has added 19 relocatable
classrooms over the past two years to serve new growth.
Students are being bused outside their attendance area
boundaries to help alleviate this situation. Busing is also
utilized to achieve ethnic balance.
The proposed project which is located within the Vista Square
School attendance area, will impact the District and a
developer fee of 11¢ per square foot is currently being charged
to help provide school facilities to serve the project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
I'APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Dr. Bruce Baumqarten of Lifetime Assistance Mr. Henry Gotthelf
Mr. Gordon Dunfee Inc.
Mr. Nevins McBride, Jr.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
'0
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No XX If yes, please indicate person(s)
~nture, association,
political subdiwsion, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~.,. (.?'~.x~'K~l~,~,_~ ~//0 /~
~ignature of applicant/~e ~
Bruce S. Baumgarten, Ph.D.
WPC 0701P _Lifetime Assistance & Services, Inc.
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-89-39; request,.t~ establish
a manufacturers grocery outlet at 650 L Street -
Canned Foods, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a request to establish a manufacturers grocery outlet within
23,000 sq. ft. of an existing light industrial building at 650 "L" Street
in the I-L zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-66,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-89-66.
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-89-66.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that Council approve the request, PCC-89-39, to
establish a manufacturers outlet at 650 "L" Street subject to the
following conditions:
a. The use shall comply with the parameters outlined in the
application in terms of the division of the space (17,400 sq.
ft. sales/5,600 sq. ft. non-sales) and hours of operation (9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) without the prior
written consent of the Zoning Administrator.
b. The applicant shall submit plans for enhancing the building and
landscaping (including the parking area) for the entire site and
which addresses vehicular circulation, pedestrian entry, cart
storage, trash areas, signage, and the proposed receiving area.
The plans will be subject to staff review and approval unless
appealed to the Design Review Committee.
c. The retail area shall be adjusted to comply with the City
standards based upon the number of parking spaces provided with
the final site plan approval.
City Planning Co~mission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page 2
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North - R-1 & R-2 - Single and two-family
South - I-L - Clothing warehouse
East - I-L - Lumber yard
West - I-L - Vacant building
Existing site characteristics
The building in question fronts on "L" Street, just to the west of the
existing lumber yard. It contains a total of 53,000 sq. ft. of floor area
and off-street parking for 119 cars. The property is part of the Ratner's
Clothing complex which includes several thousand sq. ft. of light
industrial floor space and associated parking areas on 15.5 acres of
land. Ratner's has largely ceased operations as a clothing manufacturer,
and is leasing the building space to other users.
Proposed use
The proposal is to establish the Canned Foods Outlet in 23,000 sq. ft.
located back from the frontage of the building. The front 6,000 sq. ft.
would remain available for separate lease, and the rear 24,000 sq. ft.
would remain as warehousing. The entrance would be on the east side of
the building, facing an existing parking area for 86 cars. The loading
and receiving area would be on the opposite side of the building, facing a
parking area for 33 cars. The use would employ approximately 15 persons
per shift, and operate from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
D. ANALYSIS
Manufacturers outlets are allowed in the I-L zone subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit. Such uses generally require extensive floor
areas for the storage and display of merchandise, and the high-volume,
warehouse-type sale of goods. There is also an assumption that such uses
will not generate the level of traffic and activity associated with a
typical retail use(s) of similar size.
The Canned Foods Outlet handles merchandise directly from the
manufacturers and these items consist of "factory seconds," obsolete
packaging, excess inventory and offer items which are not easily
distributed to a standard grocery store. The Outlet agrees not to
advertise or wholesale the products, and the majority of merchandise is
stored and displayed on the selling floor. Accordin§ to the applicant, a
typical grocery store handles 5,000 items and generates 5-10 times as many
customers as their facility. The Canned Foods Outlet handles
approximately 2,000 items, and generates approximately 1,000 customers and
500 cars per day. They estimate their need for parking at 60-70 spaces.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for )~eting of April 12, 1989 Page 3
The parking areas directly adjacent to the building contain 119 parking
spaces to serve 53,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The 24,000 sq. ft. of
warehouse, which occupies the rear of the building, requires 24 spaces {1
space per 1,000 sq. ft.), and the 6,000 sq. ft. of vacant floor area at
the front of the building would require 8 spaces for a typical light
industrial use (1 space per 800 sq. ft.). This leaves 87 spaces to serve
the Canned Foods proposal.
The plans show a division of the 23,000 sq. ft. into 17,400 sq. ft. of
sales floor area, and 5,600 sq. ft. of non-sales warehousing. Based on a
standard retail ratio for the sales area (1 space per 200 sq. ft.), plus
six spaces for the warehouse, the Outlet would require 87 spaces which are
now available on the site.
The City Landscape Architect has reviewed the site and recommends an
upgrade in the landscaping. We also believe that it would be appropriate
at this juncture to address an enhancement of the building to reflect the
changing nature of the operations. This could include certain
architectural embellishments, and/or the use of colors and quality
signage. A recommended condition of approval would require a design and
landscape enhancement subject to review and approval by staff, with appeal
to the Design Review Committee. The plan should also address
modifications to accommodate vehicular circulation, pedestrian flow, cart
storage, trash areas, and loading on the west side of the building. Based
upon the change in land use requiring substantial alterations to the
parking area (circulation and landscaping), the number of on-site parking
spaces presently available will be reduced. A condition has been
recommended that the applicant reduce the customer service area to meet
the parking standards or provide additional spaces to comply with the Code.
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 use at this location will provide a convenient outlet for the
purchase of discounted non-perishable grocery items.
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 available parking is adequate to serve the use as conditioned,
and there are no other foreseeable detrimental impacts.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 12, 1989 Page
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The use shall comply with all applicable conditions, codes and
regulations prior to the issuance of building and/or occupancy
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 proposal is consistent with City policy for light industrial
areas.
WPC 6121P/2652P
April 12, 1989
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner~
SUBJECT: Modification of conditions of approval for
Item 5, PCC-89-39
Please change Condition 2(a) to read:
a. The use shall comply with the parameters outlined in the
application in terms of the division of the space (17,400
sq. ft. sales/5,600 sq. ft. non-sales} and hours of operation
(9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday~ 9:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays) and 10:00. a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Sundays) without the prior written consent of the Zoning
Administrator.
SG:je.
cc: Ruth Smith, Commission Secretary
7 DNIN~d.SNI~3~I~ i,,T~I, IH3NY
!
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Canned Foods Grocery Outlets
PROJECT LOCATION: 650 West "L" Street, Chula Vista, CA
PROJECT APPLICANT: Canned Foods, Inc., 1717 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA
94103
CASE NO: IS-89-66 DATE: March 30, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of an existing concrete tilt-up building with
approximatelY 23,000 square feet and an adjacent parking area. The
building is currently being used for warehousing and light industrial
uses. The site is on the northern periphery of an industrial area, with
residential uses to the north, across "L" Street. Just south of the
project site is a concrete tilt-up structure that is currently used for
warehousing and clothing manufacture. To the east is a retail lumber
yard. To the west is a tilt-up building used for light industrial or
office space. Access is provided to the site from several driveways along
"L" Street.
B. Project Description
The project proposes to use the existing building for a high-volume,
warehouse-type manufacturers grocery outlet. The primary access to the
building is provided from "L" Street facing the lumber yard parking lot.
Approximately 107 parking spaces would be provided. The proposed use
would employ approximately 15 persons per shift, with 1.5 shifts. There
would be a total of approximately 25 employees and an estimated 475
customers per day. The facility would be operated from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project site is currently desi9nated for Research and Limited
Industrial uses. It is zoned for Limited Industrial (I-L) uses. The
Draft General Plan designates the site for Research and Manufacturing
uses. The purpose of the I-L zone is to encourage sound limited
industrial development by providing an environment free from nuisances
created by some industrial uses and to insure the purity of the total
environment of Chula Vista and San Diego County, and to protect nearby
residential, commercial and industrial uses from any hazards or
nuisances. The zone permits manufacturing, processing, assembling,
research, wholesale or storage uses, and other uses which are of the same
general character. It allows accessory uses such as offices and services
city of chula vista planning department Em'OF
environmental review section CHUIA ViStA
-2-
to serve employees and retail sales of products manufactured on the site.
Other uses, such as those proposed by the project, are allowed with
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed grocery outlet would
be compatible with the underlying zoning and General Plan designation, and
with the adjacent uses.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and emergency
medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls
within seven minutes in 85% of the cases. The project site is
located two mil es from the nearest fire station, and response time is
estimated to be four minutes. Therefore, the project is considered
to be compatible with the City's policy.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must be
able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five
minutes in 75% of the cases and within seven minutes in 90% of the
cases. The Police Department has indicated that there is no
anticipated problem regarding servicing of the project site, which is
already developed. Therefore, the project is considered to be
compatible width the City's policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that a Level of Service (LOS)
"C" be m~intained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS
"D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed
a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) is estimated to be 17,380. Upon project completion, the ADT
would be expected to be 18,880. The estimated LOS would be "B" both
before and after project completion. Therefore, the proposed project
would be compatible with the City's policy.
4. Park/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy does not apply to land west of
Interstate Highway 805. In addition, the project does not propose
any residential uses that would create impacts on park and
recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed
compatible with the City's policy.
city of chula vilta planning department cm'cx:
environmental review a®cllon. CHULA ¥I~I'A
-3-
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that water flows and volumes
must not exceed City engineering standards. Drainage from the
project site currently flows over the existing parking lot into the
gutter on "L" Street. The existing drainage improvements are
considered by the City to be adequate to serve the project.
Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's
policy.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
must not exceed City engineering standards. The proposed project
could generate an estimated 2,300 gallons of sewage daily, which will
go into the 8-inch line flowing west in "L" Street. This line is
considered adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is
considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate water service
must be available for proposed projects. Water service is already
provided to the project site building, and no significant increases
in water usage are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project is
considered to be compatible with the City's policy.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
The proposed project is not expected to result in any significant
environmental effects.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Since the project is not expected to have any significant environmental
effects, no mitigation measures are required.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
city of chula vl.ta planning department OIlY OF
environmental review lection.¢HUb~VISTA
-4-
The project site does not involve any rare or endangered species nor
the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista,
and therefore, will not achieve any short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
The project is minor in nature and will conform to the General Plan.
Any cumulative impacts will be very minor in nature.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project will not result in any hazardous substances, noise,
vibrations or emissions.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, Environmental Coordinator
Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Dept.
Sohaib A1-Agha, Engineering Dept.
Bill Wheeler, Building and Housing Dept.
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Dept.
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
San Diego County Water Authority: Chris Duncan
Sweetwater Authority: George Silva
Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva
Applicant's Agent: Charles Tiano, Rather Corporation
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review sectlon. CHUl~Vl~TA
-5-
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan (Draft)
Reprint of Title 19, Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September
1988
Zoning Map of Chula Vista
General Plan Land Use Element Map, 1970
Draft General Plan Land Use Element Map
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 6104P
city of chula vllta planning department CflYOF
environmental review .ectlon. CHULAVISTA
FOR OFFICE
Case No.
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No,
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted b~
Application Fo~ ~Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Canned Foods Grocery Outlets
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 650 'L' Street
Chula Vista~
Assessors 8ook, Page & Parcel No. 618-010-1600
3. 8RI£F PROJ£CT DESCRIPTION To operate a hiqh volume;warehouse
type) manufacturez~ grocery outlet.
4. Name of Applicant Canned Foods, Inc.
Phone (415)861-5986
Address 1717 Har~nn ~
City San Franni ~nn State CA Zip 94103
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Greg Geersten
Address 1717 Harrison Street Phone (4] 5) ~61-59R6
City San Francisco State CA Zip 94103
Relation to Applicant Employee
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan __Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map __ Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map -- Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage Mult±-tenant or acreage
If land area to be dedica~%tate acreage and purpose.
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Light industrial
b. Floor area 23,000 sq.~+. Height of structure(s) T ~0'
c. Type of construction used in the structure concrete tilt-up
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets Major access:
'L' Street facinq lumber yard parking lot.
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided +/- 107
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 15 , Number of
shifts 1.5 Total 25 employees
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
475 based on typical outlet average
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
+/- 15 miles (San Diego to Mexican Border)
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Customer parking/receiving
j. Hours of operation 9:00 a.m. - 7:00p.m. M-F
k. Type of exterior lighting Mercury vapor attatched to bldg.
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. PR~ECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfil]ed, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill wi]] be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What wi]] be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fi]]
-4-
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Electr±oal energy: freezers,
storage box, lighting, ventilat£on £d~, generam power.
GaS: Heating, water ~ ~eater.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) Parking area only (existing)
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Reta±l clerks and stockers
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? NO
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 400 auto tr±ps
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Tenant improvements
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? NO
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? ~o
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? YES (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water . table? ~o
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Drainage improvements on Arizona Street
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
NO
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? NO
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. NONE (Ail Existing)
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? NO
4. Biolo~
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
NO~
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. NONE
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? NONE
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? NONE
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Concrete t±lt-u~ ±ndustrial ty~e build±n~.
Uses include warehouse and light industrial.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North 'L'Street
South Concrete tilt-up structure used as warehouse space
and clothin$ manufacturing space.
East Retail lu~tber yard.
West Tilt-up buildinq used as liqht industrial or
office 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 could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
-- consultant or Agent '
HEREBY AFFXRM, that to the best of ~ belief, the statements and tnfo~atton
herein contained are tn all respects true and correct and that all known
cerntn the project and its setting have been included tn
infomattgn con_ . .~ ..... ~..+t~ for an Initial Stu~ of possible
Parts B, C and D or ~n~s o~F.. ..... n
envtron~ntal impact and a~ enclosu~s for at.chants. ~e~to,
~arch 10, 1989.
DATE: ·
· If act(ng for a corporation, include capaci~ and compa~ na~.
I
-8-
Case No. ~-~-
TY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: _~--/__
North
South ~,~'~
East ~/_.
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site: /l~'~rr.~c,,'y' ~-~'/~/~,~
North ~/u~w~ D~x/~.
East
West ......
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan? ~)
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ,~. ~
How many acres of parkland,are necessary to serve the proposed project?
,(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~.~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~Yk/(9
L
-9-
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. Hi gh
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
~later (per day) ~. oo~ ~./~-~?~.~ ·
6. Remarks:
irec or o ~)4qing or~[~presentativQ --~-~IP' ~¢
Case No.
G. ~NGINEERING DEPART~IENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the proje, ct be subject 'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any :flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~ ~m~ ~u~r
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~+h~+ Jr~ ~(~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. Transportation
a. ~at 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)? 16~00
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. [-7~ ~0 Jf~ ,~o0
L.O.S. ~ p~
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 ~cessary actions.
- ll
Case No. ~ ~q_~
3. ~eology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?..
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? j~ ~
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~
S. Land Form
a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site?_ ~/~t-
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~/~
6 t.~oise
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? ~o
-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 15'oo X 118.3 : ! "/-7, ~:5-c,
Hydrocarbons ~ ~oo X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) I Soo X 20.0 :
Particulates Ils-mo .~ 1.5 =
Sul fur L ~oo X .78 ~Z~,~ ~0 '
: Ii1~0
8. ~e Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid /t~60 'q~ .Liquid 2-~
) )Chat is the location and size of existing sewer line,,sL,o.n or adjacent
to the site? ~ ~' ~¢~vev- ~(ow~'~.~ ~eS+ m~,.
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
· . 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
~acilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
- 13-
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Departm,qnt's estimated reaction time? ~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the. pro. posed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel?
3. I~emark ~ ~/~ ~/~Y)~]YlOJ/~t~y--~,~L~(~.~_~
Fire M~rshal Date ! /
-13(a)-
Case No. /3
H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this
project?
Neighborhood
Community parks /~ ~
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council pol,icies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
C
L
84 EAST J STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619 425-9600
BOARD OF EDUCAllON
JOSEI~ O.CUIdIdlNGS. I~.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRtC~ A. JUOD
~¥sc.a.~sE~ APR ~ 2989'
FRANKA. TARANTINO ~a~ch 30, 1989
~JpI~RINTENDENT
ROBERT ~ ~CARTNY, E~LD.
Hr. Dou9 Re~d
Environmental Review Coordinator
C~ty of Chula V~sta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
RE: IS-89-66
Project, Applicant,: Canned Foods, Inc.
Project. Locat,~on: 650 "L" St,feet,
Project, Descr~pt,~on: Warehouse t,~pe, manufact,urers' 9~ocery out,let,
Dear l~r. Re~d:
Schools ~n the Chula V~sta C~ty School District are at capacity and
the Distr~ct has added 19 relocat,able classrooms over the past two years.
Students are bein9 bused outside their attendance area boundaries to
help alleviate th~s situation. The D~strict also utilizes busin9 to
help achieve ethnic balance.
Please be advised that, t,h~s project is ~n the Harbors~de $choo~ attendance
area. Th~s facility is currently overcrowded and the O~st~ct has added
five relocat,able classrooms to accommodate 9rowth.
Th~s proposed project wil~ ~mpact Ha~borside $chool. A developer fee
of 11~ pe~ square Toot ~s be~n9 cha~ged to ass~s~ ~n p~ov~d~n9 ~ac~l~t~es
fo~ ~h~s development,
~T you have any questions, please do no~ hesitate to contact ~h~s oTT~ce.
S~nce~ely,
~roctor of Plann~n~
IS :dp
CITY OF C~ULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT
"~"~he following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the appllcatton.
Ratner Corporation (Less6rl. -
List the names of all persons having any ownership tnterest in the property Involved.
Abraham Ratner
Nathaniel Ratner , d
~atn~ Corporation (Leasehol)-
2. If any person ~denttfted putsua~t to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
pr owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
Peter Reed
Steven Reed i
,- -
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 o~ beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $2~0 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 tnd(cate person(s)
[e~on is defineJ'as: "Any' individual, firm, i~oPa tnersh~p, )olnt vent~r~,-ass~ciation.
club, fraternal organization, .corpor~:lon estate, rust, receiver, syndicate,
his and any other county, ~tt~ and countY, ¢ :Y, muntc )alitv, district or other
91ttical subdivision, or any' ~ther group or c°mbi ~Flt gas~unit'"
'::~':~(NOT£: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
" ~lg~atl .~ o-f~a~q tan~/dat'e'-
Peter Reed\
WPC 0701P
A-110 Pr'lnt od type name of applicant