HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13780
Revised 9/9/88
RESOLUTION NO. 13780
-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING PART THREE OF THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
HHEREAS, the Montgomery Community was annexed to the
City of Chula Vista on December 31, 1985, and
HHEREAS, after determining that the area needed more
detailed land use planning guidance, the City Council directed
that a specific plan be prepared for the Community, and
WHEREAS, accordingly, a work program was prepared which
divided the project into three major parts:
Part One, the Survey, Evaluation, and Forecast,
establishes the foundation for the Plan
Part Two, the Plan Proper, sets forth the plan's goals,
general objectives, policies, principles and planning
and design programs, and
Part Three, which sets forth the Implementation Program
and the conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan.
HHEREAS, Parts One and Two were adopted by the City
Council on January 12, 1988, and
HHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the Negative Declaration IS-88-4M, prepared on
August 21, 1987, constitutes adequate prior review of the
proposed project.
NOH, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that the adoption of
Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan would have no
significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative
Declaration issued under IS-88-4M.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
adopt Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan with the
exception of #6 on page 8 that relates to fire sprinklers,
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference
as if set forth in full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
..- J£r- ~i
.J1L~.
George Krempl, irector of D. Richard Rudol
Planning City Attorney
4640a
-.. .---.-...-----.-
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of September
/9 ~, by the following yote, to-wit:
AYES: Coune i 1 members Cox, Moore, McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm
NAYES: Couneilmembers None
ABSTAIN: Counei lmembers None
ABSENT: Couneilmembers None
Chula Vista
ATTEST ~ ~ ~
¿:/' City Cler
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
" JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 13780 ,and that the same has not been amended or repealed
~
DATED
City Clerk
CC-660
_. _0...__0
EXTRACT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 6, 1988 PERTAINING
TO PART THREE OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
PCM-88-10M: Consideration of Ora ft Part Three, The "Implementation
Program", of r'~ontgornery Specific Plan ¡Continued)
The Commi ttee noted a rev is i on to page 8 of the in it i a 1 Ora ft Part Three
as considered by the Cammi ttee at its meeting of June 15, 1988. The
specific references was to fire protection.
Rene Apalategui, 2619 Fa i v re Street, asked about the future use of his
property, which is now being used for industrial purposes.
He wa s advi sed by staff tha t he may continue his present use. He was
further advised that if the City decided to acquire his property, he would
be justly compensated.
Dan Pass, Principal Planner, using a graphic display, reviewed the
relationship of the major components of the t"ontgomery Specific Plan. He
further discussed Ora ft Part Three, outlining its major features, and
noting the forthcoming rezoning program and special area studies.
Note: Committee members Castro and iiheeland stated they had 1 is tened to
the tape of the June 15, 1988, hearing on Dra ft Pa rt Three, and were
eligible to vote on its adoption.
HSUC (Fox/Patton), 6-0, to find that the adoption of Oraft Part Three of
the 11ontgomery Specific Plan would have no significant environmental
impact and adopt the tlegative Declaration issued under IS-88-4r,:.
MSUC (Fox/Castro), 6-0, to approve Draft Part Three of the ¡1ontgomery
Specific Plan and recommend tha t .he City Planning Commission and Ci ty
Council adopt such (copy attached).
HPC 535RP
/31?fLJ
-. ---.-.,-_._..._0'_'_-_-- . _......- ._-,--~
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-88-10
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COt~MISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF
DRAFT PART THREE OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, upon the annexati on of the Montgomery Community, the Chul a
Vista City Council determi ned that the order and ameni ty of the community
needed eonsiderable improvement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council further determined that the improvement of
Montgomery's order and amenity could best be accomplished under the aegis of a
speeific plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Ci ty Counci 1 directed the City Pl anni ng Department to
assist the elected Montgomery Planning Committee with the preparati on of a
speeific plan for the Montgomery Community; and,
WHEREAS, the project was divided into three major parts comprised of
Part One, the Survey, Eval uation, and Forecast. Part Two, the Pl an Proper;
and Part Three, the Implementation Program; and
WHEREAS, sai d Parts One and Two were adopted by the Ci ty Counci 1 on
January 12, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Part Three was subsequently prepared, and approved,
pursuant to a public hearing eonducted by the Montgomery Planning Committee on
July 6, 1988; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public heari ng the Montgomery
Planning Committee recommended adoption of Draft Part Three of the Montgomery
Specific Plan to the City Planning Commission, and Chula Vista City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission set the time and place for a
public hearing to consider Draft Part Three of the t~ontgomery Specific Plan,
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by the
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days
prior to the date of said hearing; and,
WHEREAS, a heari ng was hel d at the time and place as advertised,
namely 7:00 p.m., August 10, 1988, before the City Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission found that Draft Part Three of
the Montgomery Spec ifi c P1 an woul d not have a significant impact upon the
environment and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-04M.
-. - -..- --- / :{ 7,R()
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Planning Commission finds that the adoption of
Dra ft Part Three of the Montgomery Specifi c Pl an wi 11 have no
significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative
Declaration issued under IS-88-04M.
2. From facts presented to the City Pl anni ng Commi ss i on, the City
Planning Commission finds that public necessity. convenience,
general welfare and the systematic execution of the General Plan
require the adoption of Dra ft Part Three of the Montgomery
Speeifie Plan (copy attached).
3. The Ci ty Pl anni ng Commi ssi on recommends to the City Counci 1 that
said Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan be adopted.
4. That this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA.
CALIFORNIA this 10th day of August, 1988, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Carson, Fuller, Tugenberg. Grasser, Cannon. Casillas. Shipe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/. 1
"- j, C-(/lv)L<-/ ¿ é:v..:2(J
Jo~e c. Carson, Chalrman
ATTEST:
4.~ ,..-/ L~
Secretary
WPC 43l2P
_u ~-_._,-----_._._---- I:? :;fò
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF PLANNING CDMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1988
4. PUBLI C HEARI NG: CONSIDERATION OF PART THREE, THE "IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM"
OF THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
Principal Planner Pass stated that Part Three of the Montgomery Spec ifi c Plan
being presented tonight was the post-plan component and dealt with the
implementation program of the policies, goals, objectives and proposals stated
within Part Two. He traced the structure and flow of the plan stating that the
first part, the foundation, dealt with the physical/social and economic survey
of the Montgomery Community. From evaluation of this survey, the trends analyses
were established and forecasts made and utilized in preparing the Plan for Part
Two. Part Three involves the zoning and rezoning program including the
additional implementation mechanism such as subdivision controls which will
discourage the panhandle lots, shoe-string and pork-chop subdivisions already
overabundant in Montgomery. It also initiates the Capital Improvement Program,
Code enforcement and introduces the new Montgomery Nei ghborhood Renewal Program
(MNRP) and, finally, the strongest form of implementation, the Redevelopment
Program. Mr. Pass also refereneed the special study areas (the White-land
studies) which wi 11 dea 1 with the Otay River Flood Plain, the mi xed uses in
West Fairfield and other open spaees such as the SDG&E ri ght-of-way to be
considered in the future.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the awareness and input into Part Three by
the people of Montgomery. Mr. Pass replied that the matter was thoroughly adver-
tised, publ ic hearings were held, people were invited, bi-lingual flyers were
promulgated at Community Centers, libraries and other public or quasi-public
centers. The turn-out, however, was small and most of the coneern was about
the zoning or the Speeific Plan. Even those who do not like the Speeific Plan
expressed little criticism of the implementation program.
In response to Commissioner Fuller's questions regarding the reaction to
d mechanism of the Revital ization Program, Mr. Pass commented that good
response had been received a 1 though the program is still in the formulation
phase. Di rector Kremp 1 interjected and offered to provide the Commission with
background ma teri a 1 and arrange for a review and discussion of the program at
one of the workshops. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Casillas said he considered the Plan to be well conceived. He asked
about the dens ity bonus bei ng granted for good des i gn (paragraph 5, page 7),
and asked staff's opinion on the anticipated number of applications. Principal
Pl anner Pass sa i d a large number of applications were not anticipated because
of the amount of time necessitated for recommendation by the Planning Director,
review by the ORC, the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission.
He explained the difference between the density bonus achievable from the
low-and-moderate income and the "good design", but noted that they were mutually
exclusive. For that reason, many developers will utilize the affordable housing
density bonus route. It is considered that the "good design" plan will be
excellent in certa i n areas where there is enough involved land to make it
profitab 1 e and where there are long-term expectations on development. Only a
small number of developers have expressed interest. The State, in creating
the speeific plan process, generated a process that is both genera 1 plan and
precise plan in order to tailor-make communities. This beneficial provision
allows a partial re-tailoring of the Montgomery Community.
w, /37cØ
. --- .-- .. .--.--.-.---------.
-2-
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Paul Green, 141 Lotus Drive, Chula Vis ta, spoke in oppos it ion to Item 4c,
paragraph 2, page 1. He referenced copies of the County Use Regulation given
to both the Montgomery Planning Committee and to staff. He pointed out that
under the R-C zone of the County his possession of 20 old cars on his property
had been protected and asked how the zoning had been changed from County to that
of Chula Vista and had it been done without due proces s of 1 aw. Principal
Planner Pass indicated that the County's R-C zone is not establ ished within the
Montgomery Community and that Mr. Green's land is in the R-S6 zone. Mr. Green
then drew the Commission's attention to "Section II- Zon i ng and Special
Regulations" of the Draft Plan which outlines the method i ca 1 reclassification
of the Montgomery Territory from County to Chula Vista zoning and regulations.
He expressed coneern that the City had not waited until implementation of this
plan before taking action on the removal of his cars. Mr. Green asked for an
additional 30 minutes to present his case to the Commission.
Commissioner Fuller said she was of the opinion that Mr. Green was referring
more to the Code enforcement than zoni ng. For the benefi t of others in the
audience with this same concern, she stressed that the implementation portion
of the Pl an does not rezone the property. The rezon i ng ca 11 ed for under the
Table of Translation (page 5A of the Plan) would be undertaken separately and
is subject to additional environmental review on an individual basis in the
future.
Ken Harland, 347 ilL" Street, owner/operator of Castle Park Montessori School
on Kennedy Street, expressed concern about the high density bonus factor and
asked for a clearer explanation. Principal Planner Pass explained that the
State Density Bonus for low-and-moderate-income households allows a 25% density
bonus for those meeting the qualifications. The Urban Des i gn or Townscape
Planning Bonus is completely separate and completely separate and covers housing
of all types. The bonuses are not related and if a person has qualified for an
Affordable Housing Bonus, the additional (Urban Design) bonus would not be
available.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Grasser referenced page 8, item 6, regarding automatic fire
sprinklers, and asked if this was standard for commercial development over 2,000
square feet in the City of Chula Vista? Pl anner Pass replied that it was
decidedly not standard but was included (as explained in the footnote) as an
advisory note uni que to Montgomery. He noted that industrial uses have been
built alongside of residential uses and very primitive fire-fighting facilities
have been developed on site. Fire hydrants una ttached to water mains, for
instance, have been di scovered in the community. Commissioner Grasser said her
concern was the high cost of fire sprinkling system installation and voiced the
opinion that it might be better considered on a case-by-case basis instead of
"across the board". Mr. Pass agreed that the point was well taken and had been
discussed at the meetings. He added that the insertion of such a requirement,
although stipulated as advisory at this point, serves to put the people on-notice
and the Chairman of the Montgomery Planning Committee had expressed conviction
that the economies aehieved in fire insurance and in reduction of the need for
fire hydrants and stand pi pes wou 1 d be more than offset by the ineorporation
of this provision. The provision, of course, would need review by both the
Department of Public Safety and City Administration before adoption.
.- - 0'-.- --.^'. ",. l.i7ð'ò
_. .'."_0.." _..-
-3-
Commissioner Fuller drew attention to differences between the Implementation
Draft Program in the packet and the blue-bound copy sent later. She referred
to page 8 specifiea11y. Mr. Pass noted that the last revision to the draft had
been the fire sprinkler situation just discussed.
MSUC (Fuller/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find this project wi 11 ha ve no
signifieant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Delcaration issued on
IS-88-4M.
MSUC (Fuller/Cannon) to approve Draft Part Three of the Montgomery Specific Plan
and recommend that the City Council adopt sueh.
Commissioner Fuller commended the staff on the excellence of the report.
'" _. 13?Jò
. -. "'."'0_-._".-.- .-.. ...-- -'0_._'..___0....-_-
negative C declaration -Í
'\
PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area loeated in the south\~esterly part of
the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS 88-414 DATE: August 21. 1987
A. Project Setti ng
The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square
miles loeated in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It
1 ies 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. I
The r'4ontgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subeommunities
which are significant in referenee to land use planning. They have been
identified by considering such faetors as social relationships, historieal
reference. and geographical place name. The subcommunities are:
Broderick's Otay Acres. Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay,
and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.)
Within the Montgomery planning area 1 ies a diversity of land uses \~hich
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 intennixed to the poi nt where substanti a 1
land use conflicts are occurring. G~neralized 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 exi sti ng resi denti al uses,
s i ngl e famil y housi ng types constitute 522 acres (30~n mobil ehomes occupy
155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute
48 acres (3%).
A lthough each of the subcommuniti es contai ns substanti a1 ac reage devoted
to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences,
containing 55% of all single family acreage in r"ont8omery and 7l:j of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 7;v., of the mobilehome
acreage.
Cor;¡merci al activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres with in
tlontgomery, representing roughly 8~b of the planning area. f1ost commerci al
use types follow a s tri p pattern of development and predor;¡inate along
Broadway, ¡.Iain Street and Third Avenue.
~Jf?
:--.--:
~:::~
city 01 chuJa vista ---
planning department ON OF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
/~ '7 ç>/¡
..' 0.."_""..'-- ",,"".-0--""'--.
( -2- (
Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of
Harborside Band Otay; industrial uses occupy 111 acres or 42% of
Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Ctay. Together, they represent 89%
of all industrially used land in the planning area.
Substanti ala reas gi ven over to i ndustri a 1 uses wi thi n the p 1 anni ng area
are intermixed with residential and commercial. and the combination tends
to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light
i ndustri a 1 uses are i ntermi xed resulti ng in eonti nui ng adverse impacts
from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts.
Public and quasi-public land uses inelude such uses as schools. churches
and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the
planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public
school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools,
two elementary schools, and a district administrative center.
Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9
acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes
buildings for the community center and parking.
The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres
of 1 oca 1 park 1 and for every 1,000 persons served. whi ch i nc 1 udes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the ¡.1ontgomery planning
area is 100 acres.
There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant,
or agricul tural land. Larger parcel s and concentrations of vacant 1 and
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 wiUdn Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club
for use as a golf course.)
Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are
suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to
constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or
location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands.
Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within
the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property vlhich
contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that
currently permittee by zoning and any physical constraints \~hich limit
permitted uses.
Areas surrounding the i10ntgomery 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.
_. . _..oo_."""~".'- ..... >...._.. .o.-,~~-'-~--'" /3? ,f/J ..--
( " (
- 3-
B. Project Description
The Montgomery Specifi c Pl an is a detail ed gui de 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, pol ides
and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of
the relationship between the fYlontgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Pa rts I
and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the
implementation phase. An additional initial study will be requi red upon
completion of that doeument.
The majority of existing land uses would, in genera 1, be maintained under
the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined withi n the
plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwell i ng units per acre, where current
residential zoni ng ranges from 4-29 dwell i ngs per aere. 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 speci fi c detai 1 s 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 si te of the Lauderbach Communi ty Center. In addition,
present deficieneies in the provision of parklands are addressed through
proposed retenti on of SDG&E transmi ssi on 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 mercanti 1 e uses are reserved as special s tu dy areas
pending further analysi s of issues involving soci o-economi c,
environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns.
Two areas withi n Montgomery woul d be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies with in the subcommunity
known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands \'¡ithin the
floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of r~ai n Street
between Industri al 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 \~hi ch industrial and other uses are
presently conducted.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Part Two of the i~ontgomery Speci fi c Pl an is fully consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objecti ves of the Ch u 1 a Vi s ta
General Pl an, and its text and diagram are designed '::0 methodically
express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail.
/,;¡, ~ J:-?'ì
_. .. .<-... 0.'- ".0----'---"".
( -1\- (
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Groundwater/Drainage
There are two areas whieh involve water courses as they flow through
the Montgomery Pl anni ng area> the Tel egraph Canyon Creek and the Otay
River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining
into the San Di ego Bay. Areas subject to poten ti a 1 envi ronmenta 1
impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of
thi s 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 Ari zona
Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J"
Street f.1arsh. At present, the U. S. Army Corps of Engi neers is
engaged in ehannel ing the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Indus tri a 1 Boulevard, whi ch will remove
properties adj aeent to the channel from the 100 year
floodplain. The channelization p roj ect 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 impaet areas as parks and open space (west of Third
Avenue subject to further study) and pri vate country club to
signify flood areas contai ned within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed 1 and uses i nvo 1 ve presentl y vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures and are> therefore, compatible wi th the floodplain
designation. In addition, since the special study area requires
project specific environmental review to assess potential issues
Ylith respect to any biological resources present, the proposals
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects.
2. Otay River Valley
The Otay River Val1ey bounds the southern edge of the planning
area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San
Oi ego). At present, 1 a rge trac ts of vacant 1 and are
interspersed wi th two batch plant operations and marginal
industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing
yards.
The a rea south of ¡-lain Street bet\~een ß road\~ay and Industrial
and a small area north of f.1ain Street betlveen Industrial
Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100
year floodplain for the Otay River. The area no rth of r1ai n
Street was developed with inDustrial buildings unde r County
/, ~ 7[/()
_. . . ...._...0...'_'. --- ., 0 ...o..OO'.~'- .0_.0.'._'
( -5- (
regulations prior to annexation under development regulations
requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when
flooding oeeurs. The area south of Main Street eontains a
eombination of large industrial use s wi th interim type storage
and industrial yards, intermixed with residential and eommercial
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 Mai n Street is proposed for Research and Industrial
land uses subject to special study prior to designation of
permanent 1 and 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 aetivities would be permitted
until the completion of comprehensive biologieal and wetlands
determination studies, as well as development of a regi Dna 1
park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subj ect to
review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The spec i a 1 study area and "Hhitelands" functi on as a holding
designation pending resolution of complex envi ronmenta 1 and
jurisdietional land use issues. As such, no adverse
environmental impacts wi 11 result from implementation of the
proposals outlined in the plan.
Land Use/Social Displacement
There are three areas withi n t-10ntgomery for which the draft pl an
proposes 1 and uses that are substanti ally different from 1 and uses
which presently exi st or are permi tted under present zoni ng. These
areas are: 1) properties south of Main Street betl.¡een 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 ¡-Jar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.)
These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or
people employed on these sites as an indi rect result of a change in
land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows.
1) BrOdericks Otay Acres
The area knmm as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily
with single family dwellings having access to narrmJ residential
streets in combination with the use of private streets and
dri ves. Historically zoning restricted development to single
family uses.
/ Q7E-ò
- . .-."" ..-.-....-- ,-"",.",.""-"",,--,,.,,_,._0_-
( -6- (
In May of 1985, the zoning and General P1 an 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 i nterva 1 that mul ti fami 1y uni ts
have been permi tted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apartments have occurred. The draft ~lontgomery Speci fi c Pl an
proposes to return the designated land use to single family
deve 1 opment with a density of no more than five dwellings per
acre.
Since the proposed land use designation is in keeping \~ith the
existing land uses present and the circulation system available,
and si nce there are no actual apartments developed withi n this
subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts wi 11 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 sc rapyards and auto di smant1 i ng ya rds. The activities
conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open
uses ~iÏthin fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature
and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permi t
process to mi~gate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from
operation of these businesses.
The proposed land use designation under the draft plan would
prohi bi t sc ra p and di smantl ing operati ons and restrict
deve 1 opment to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although
displacement of existing sc rapya rds and auto di smantl i ng yards
would occur, development of other industrial activities which do
not result in adverse aesthetic impacts coul d take place under
implementation of the speci fi c plan. The development of other
industrial uses wh i c h are not unsightly wi 11 result in a
benefici al envi ronmenta 1 effect to the area, \~h i 1 e employment
associated with limited i ndustri al uses \~i 11 mitigate the
di sp 1 acement of people currently employed at these sites to a
level below significance.
3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy
The draft ¡'1ontgomery Speci fic Pl an p ropo ses to develop a focu s
point for community civic and commerci al activities within the
area surroundi ng the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford
Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street.
Tilis civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the
plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus.
137J?Õ
. --'-'.-....'-- ........,.-. .-..._._~.~----_._-----
-.
( -7- (
Part of this proposal entail s deepening and expansion of
commercial 1 and use designations along the east si de of Third
Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in
Exhi bit C. The expansion of commercial 1 and use designations
woul d take place on properties which are currently residential
in nature, and coul d displace resi dents and affect exi sting
housing as an indirect resul t 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 bun di ng sites within the Focus to a
cor;¡mercial classifieation should be preceded by comprehensive
studies which address soeio-eeonomic, environmental, housing,
townscape planning, and traffic issues."
The special study area is structured so that commercial
development on properti es with existing residential uses is
precl uded until appropri ate studies and mitigation is effeeted.
In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
studi es as part of the revi ew. Therefore, the proposed acti on
at thi s point does not constitute an adverse and significant
envi ronmenta 1 i mpac t.
Transportation/Access
Among the proposals presented within the ~1ontgomery Specific Plan are
suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and
i nfras tructu re. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to
wi den the right-of-way for ~lain Street beneath the ~iTDB bri dge at
Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at
Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects
which are not known at thi s time, the text stipulates that these
revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engi nee ri ng
studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals
to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon
further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse
environmental impact.
Landform/Topography
One subcommuni ty withi n the Montgomery Specific Plan, \Iood 1 awn Park,
is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of
1 arger parcels \~ith substandard or nonexistent acces s. Further
development of this area for single family residential uses as
outlined by the t,10ntgomery Spec i fi c Plan \'¡oul d potenti ally involve
substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard
development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the
City of Clìula Visti:1 require Ulat grading and construction permits be
/37 J'Ò
- ---.- -.._.-_._--_.." ._......._-..-.._-- ---.
C -B- (
obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed
ci rcul ati on improvements to the area. Further envi ronmental
assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific
impacts, as required through the Environmental Revi el't Procedures
Manual for the City of Chula Vista.
Given these standard deyelopment regulations, no si gnifi eant and
adverse environmental effects will oceur to existing steep
topographic conditions at the plan stage.
E. Project Modifications
Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas
is precl uded by the plan through use of speci a 1 study area and
whitelands designations, no mitigation is required.
Land Use/Social Development
Three potenti a 1 impact areas were identified with proposed land uses
which would confliet with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and whi ch have the potenti alto di spl ace res i dents or employees on
site. Those areas are listed as follows:
A. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not oecurred at currently permitted
residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and sinee
the predominant land use density eonforms to that proposed by
the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no miti gati on is
required.
B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and
heavy industrial aetivities in confl i ct wi th the Research and
Limited Industri all and use desi gnati on proposed by the Draft
Pl an; those uses woul d eventually be terminated as a resul t.
However, since the proposed 1 and use designation would foster
i ndustri a 1 activities offeri ng other employment opportun iti es
without the unsightly characteri sti c s existing in scrap and
dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will
occur and no mitigation is required.
C. Parcel s east of Thi rd Avenue between Napl es Street and Kennedy
Street
Commerc i a 1 1 and use designations are proposed for areas I'd th
existing established single family dwellings as part of a
proposal for the Oxford/Thi rd Avenue Civic ¡,lercantile F oc us.
However, since implementation of the commerc i a 1 1 and use is
precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences
and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study
a rea, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
137t;ð
~.,._, ,."..-.",,--."'-""-"-----
( '
(
Transportation/Access
The plan suggests eertain proposals to revise and expand traffic
c i rcul ati on through the Montgomery area, chi ef among these i s 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 preeludes 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 Woodl awn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. Further development for single
fami ly residences may include significant alteration of existing
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
gradi ng and constructi on permi ts at the proj ect 1 eve 1 wi th attendant
environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
occur at this point and no mitigation is requi red pending future
reVlew.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to
avoid any significant impact.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development
within fl oodp 1 a in with the potenti a 1 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 p 1 anni ng and envi ronmenta 1 goals wi 11 be achi eved 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
si gnifi cant and adverse envi ronmental effects have been i dentifi ed;
there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively conservative.
4) Implementation of r~ontgomery Specific Plan \,ill not cause substantial
adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly.
/-3 tðð
-. ....- ._.__0_."- --"
( -10- C.
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 Gl ass, Traffic Engineer
2. Documents
1) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code
2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista
3) Draft Montgomery Speeific Plan Parts I and II, 1987
4) "Tel egraph Canyon Creek Channel Real i gnment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps
of Engineers Flnal Supplemental Envlronmental Assessment, March
1987
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Contro 1 ana Draft Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement" U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September 1979
6) Fl oodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency r.1anagement Agency,
June 15, 19&4
7) South Bay Commun i ty PJ,an, County 0 f San Di ego, 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 ~ni~i~l Study application ~nd evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no slgnlflcant lmpact are on flle and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
~j,é:~~
E"f1VIRON~nAL REVIHJ COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
~PC 4242P/0175P ~\{~
~~
\.. city of chula vista planning department ~~~F=:
environmental review section CHUI.A Vlsrt'
137 !ò
......--..' "0_- 0 --. ...~._o~._.-..--...-
.~ c ~;'
I ......... en. z
:: '" II) Z c
en<t. < .- W 0
>z ..J O. >~-;;
WW 0
a:< :.:: 0:<: g caa:;
W-J _a: a: :'::-'~c"":.':~.:::~~:':'::"'7 ~ o:;~õ
...<t < .... 0 w
~ It).s:: 0 '0
:¡:a. - a. 0 ~ t.) Q¡
Z-J ~u
_Zc
CO ~«a. Oz<ll
:EO<C z>
CJ- !::5:¿¡
....!:: :;-:E UC1.
4 zO Ot-
OW U~
:¡:a. m'"
~<t
(/) en'"
CJ)
>- ".c:'"
<
. 1-'
.. a
\I)
. -
:<:
<J ~
.,...-. -. -
.a:
w
0
a
a:
co
.." ",..,,-"
-
<
w '.-'
0
-
\I)
a:
0
co
c:
<
J:
. ,.' ".-=-,,:.'~.
H
.. ...'
~ -.
/ó7PO' .
H EXHIBIT A
i;,¡;;u:;a--::;';;L \:Z-..;::::;ö?~ "",,,,"TJ;;.~~ ~
... ..-.......--.....--- -~
>- ~ ß w D [J[]II 1111 0 li ~ ~¡g
a:..J NG,n ..................u.. >~'.!!
Wo. -zv, ...4...4:!4:>:¡Z <..>
:e ...J - :) D ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ;:; ~ ~ 5 ~õ
0 () .A' f- z ~~ ~~ ; ; ~ 1 > Xo"t!
- ~ C UI:::;;;:::;;;z 0.." o"'~
CJ u. ,.,. ,n ~UI oz~ ~~ g ! ~ ~ II. C c
f- Woo v, - .. 0 0 o'ë"
- w-Z ..J" ~ u .. c>
Z 0 X.A' Z ~ 2 ~~::¡
0 UJ Z ~ : ¡ -'"
::Eo. WW..J ¡ ~ 0
W ~
G
="
:
nLVO .
;,.
I
~
~
j
::;
r
I ./
I' ~.~ :~-~/ 'I' rt. ,.
II I , "Ì'}l~:f '.'-'
/ I 1 t "~' .
,/ I ". ' ~. 'Lf¡~;¿:-'
I:",. .' >
, \~\. .
r------, , '~~-=-. -I3=1~- .,
L--J EXHIBIT B
. ......- . ---.... ....-..---.
-.J ,-' \
-- ~'
,
0 .
0 0
< c
£ . ,
< " ~
~ a ,
0
<
a.
::E ,... >-
. w æ à:
c¡ ::E < CI)
< W a: <
~ 0 c¡ w
< < 0 a:
a: ....I a. <
0 a. 0 ,...
..... £? .... 0
z 0 ..... if
- ..... ::E ::E
< W a: -
rr CI) 0 0
0 ~ I&. ¡¡
0 0 0 I&.
0 Z Z <
....I < < a:
I&. ....I ....I ....
Ol]il"i"'",,.',.,...", iii.>;', =
lÌ!uÍ1 ê
'c""",
/
/' !
"" .
../ .,
, I
I
-------¡ :
-.
-......-. "'-'-.-
. .' ( ( fOX OFFICE USE
", Ca se No. IS-88-65M
Fee -
INITIAL STUDY Receipt ria.
Date Rec'd '-I- II- C,¿ (¿
City of Chula Vista Accepted by - ,- .~
Application Form Project No. r=/.:¡ -::. d::;:;
A. BACKGROUND
,. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Speeifie 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 eoncluding part of the
three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or
regulatory mechanisms which are designed to executp or f'fff'r.tlliltf' the plan.
4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista, PlanninQ Department
Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
5. Name of Pre parer/Agent Daniel M. Pass, princi~l Planner and
Frank "J:'ñerrera, ASS 1 S tant fl nner
Address Same as #4 . one
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
--- Condo Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
--- Vari ance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations £ng. 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
-;r Specific Plan --- Improvement Plans --- Traffic Impact Report
--- Other Agency Permit or --- Soils Report --- Other
--- Approvals Required --- ---
u:: (Rev, ]2(22) /37rfò
~ ",--"'" .. . ._-
".' ( (
.,
3/3/88
r~ONTGm1ERY SPEC IFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT
PART THREE PAGE
I. I NTRODUCTI ON
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 Pl an 3
B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4
1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4
2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5
3. Speeial Montgomery Regulations 6
4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8
III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 10
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
137?Ò
_. . --..--...'-'- . ..'..._-..... . .,,'-'--"""".'
( (
missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County Genera 1
Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust
formulated in conjunction with these issues.
I
C. Present Plan Implementation
Si nee the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chul a
Vi sta General Pl an has primarily eonsisted 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 Speci fi e Pl an
ca 11 s for an overall program of effectuation whieh is more
identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of
Montgomery and its seyeral subcommunities.
D. Proposed Plan Implementation
The following text is eomprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations"
and "Additional Pl an Implementation" standards. The former
addresses the County Zoni ng Pl an whi ch presently governs 1 and use
within Montgomery and the City of Chu1a Vista's zoning regulations
which govern 1 and use in the balance of the municipality. Of
greater significance, this seetion proposes a special "r~ontgomery
Zoning Plan," which will eonsist of the i ntroducti on of selected
eity- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored
"Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special
Regulations Seetion also ineludes townseape 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 IS methodi ca 1 effectuation of the Specifi c Plan, and its
incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from
"County Zoning" to "City Zoning."
-2-
/37t"Ò
H."__'_H.__..._... '--T ._..~._--_.._---
. (( i(
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
I,
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
~n~
I, jJ~~e~L N\. ~~} ~~(\y~\.. .ç::>lI\N~~R.
\\J-l.j~'\~G ùEf\. I C'tT'{ öf/t\iJV\\ì\S'A- or
Consultant or Agent
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respeets 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: Mt\~ /1, ) \q~\S'
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
/3 7Jc~
~ ..-..-...........-. ..._~..._..-..... . --. .........---..----
( ( ;.
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capaci ty From Project
El ementary
Jr. Hi gh /U
Sr. High
4. Aestheties
Does the projeet contain features which could be construed to he at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe. ).\) :..
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sourees:
Electricity (per year) /¡
Natural Gas (per year) I
via ter (per day)
6. Remark s:
I
!
i i¡ /1. /ie!.
Dlrector of Plannlng or Representatlve Date
137cfð
~ .-..--..."...---.- --.,... ........ .-...-...----..-----
"'
(( l.(
,.
- 11 -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? ,vi /.4
L i quefacti on? ;oJ/A
:
Landslide or slippage? ~4
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? . filo
4. Soil s
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? AJ/A
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report neeessary? Ne
5. Land Form
a. What is the ayerage natural slope of the site? ,v /ft
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ¡J/A
I
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 appl i cant? ¡J"
.
I ::? 7 çr\
-- .->..--.,-.,,- ,.,_'_'n___,-,--~,,_.-,,____,_LL_"'_'_-'
(( (r
\.
- 13 -
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARn1ENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase. in equipment
or personnel?
3. . Remarks
- ~ f 1Jt7/C7
¿./ ì
" ~L<. C
Flre 1.1ars a] Date ( I l
Liú. \ iktJ JqUl./L&\ct~. i;LU Tfu.~,itLee.[;;>L^ {Ii. .
CL é t lVLa.ft~j ~ . 'lieu f tCí/ {ì¿CJ..ê<L>L~ttl( (U:t~.
U'/¿1:IU\ C;LktL-L it'>L CjL!~ ,.:Ù~ L'f t il). Lu
Jf d_ý,Lt. L'íl. . L "eMF C'" ,c. '. '.
...
. -
137?O
_. . ---.-..----.-.---"....-... -_.. ..'
.,' c- (,
'I
- 14 -
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONr'¡ENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO. 'j 'f{ð~11
1. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL NO
1. Geology
a. Is the projeet site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
1 i quefacti on? - - ~-'
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or V
changes in geological substructure? - -
, A significant modification of any unique
geological features? - - ~
Exposure of people or property to significant ~/
geologic hazards? - -
2. So i 1 s
a. Does the project site contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? - V
-
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increa~e in wind or water /
erosion of soils, either on or off-site? - - -
A significant amount of siltation? l/"' /
- -
3. Ground !-later
a. Is the project site over or near any ~'
accessible ground water resources? --..!..<:::' -
/37åð
-- ....... ..-....-..----.--...---..,. .0- .'--'."____0_--
/-
(- ,
\..
- 16 -
YES POTENTIAL NO
7. Ail' 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? JL.
--- ---
Emissions \~hich could degrade the ambient
air quality? - - ..iL""
Exacerbation or a violation of any National V
or State ambient air quality standard? - -
Interference with the maintenance. of V
standard air quality? - -
, The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or L
regi Dna 11y? - ---
A violation of the revised regional air /"
quality strategies (RAQS)?
--- ---
8. 14a ter Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water ~
quality or public \'IaJer supplies? --- ---
9. Noise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby ~
mobile or stationary sources? --- ---
b. Could the project directly or indirectly ~~
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels?
--- ---
k~79t1
-- --0----'-- ---_._._-~-.--_.- ...-.---- - >--------------
( r
- 18 -
YES POTENTIAL NO
b. Is the project inconsistent with the ~
Comprehensive Regional Plan? - -
13. Aesthetics
ð. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at varianee with prevailing community
standards -L/'
- -
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista .J./
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? - L -
A significant' change in density or growth X
rate in the area?
- -
Th~ntial demand for additional housing ~
or a~ect existing hou~ing? - -
15. Community Infrastructure
.
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate V
support for the community or this project? -
-
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the foll O\~i ng servi ces?
Fire Protection /
l/
Police Protection - - ¡,/
Schools - ,-
Parks or Recreational Facilities - - ~
Maintenance of Public Facilities - - ---.J,¿
Including Roads /
v
- - -
-
/.~/ %~
-.... .. ..'.'-..-..---.-'.----'-'.-... ..-..-- --.---------....
( r
1.
- 20 -
YES POTENTI AL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or V
upset eondition? - -
,
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? - - ~
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projeets that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a ~
eumu1ative effect of a significant level? - -
-
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment? - - ~
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatiyely brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) L/
- - -
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.) - - -.J¿
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? -' l.
-
/37 g-d
- ".~""_."""-------~._-"-" "'.- " "--. "-"-----
-. 'e. (
. .
..
"
a
~ ~ N
"0 "0
~ ~ ..
~ ~ ~
" " .. ~ .. ,,~ 'õ
" ""~ ""~ .." ..
. a 0 a ° ° .... .." ..
"N "NN" NN" .... ... -... .
e" ",," " " "0 "0"0"
- O" o..~o "~O" o a ~ ~ ~ '"
e Nu NuwN uwN" - N U U U e
.' oe ".. e.. 0" "".. ......
N .... .. ......... ~...... N " ...... .. " e '"'
u'" u"'.. "", ..".. e "0'" ..o..o
"... e.....'" ........... ~O'" o ON" ....~..
~.... ""Eu "E~" ONU N N'" ......" ~
..."'.. "'~o" "°"'" w'" .... u ~ u ue ...
p~: ~:~~ :~~ g :3¡ 3 3~ ~..~ g ~ ~~ §
.."'... ",......." ......... '" uo w wU "" N "'..
.... ... ........ ......"... "wu ~ ~,,~o.... ~~" ~
~ ~~ ~~~'" ~~"': ~~~ ~ ~~ ~N"'~ ~ ~ ~; ~
...",~ 1~~u ~~~ '" M~w '" "'" "'...."'" - '" "'.... "
~s "" "0" e "... ""00,,"""'° ...
.....0 o..~ 0"" ~ ...u~""" "wON"""" ,,= ~
~!~ !~~~ ~~t ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ]~:~~!] ]~ ~
",...~ ...~~" ~~" U ""'° U u" "~w-~ ~ "..
.... '" ",...0. "'0. w -uw"""" MU~"Ow'" ~ M- ..
"" ,,"U< ..u<" Seo E E" "->-"" .. "w ..
",...e -ex ex a. "'~~......~ "0 w... a "'" '" "00. 0
""O "°01' 001' < <u... '"' '""" """=~ 0 ~
M '"' '"' ,,<-~~ " "w ...
~..oN ~~~~ ~~~" ÕÕ~ ~ ~~ ~IØ"'~'" ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ¿¿¿ ~ ~~ ~<ð~~~ ~ ~~ 0
~ "
to> .... . . . . . . . ~..
c:.
"
u
x
"
..
.. .. ..
'" o ~
= "0 ...
... ... ...
" .. ~
.... ......... -.. u
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 8 ~
"'", ...... ~ u ~ --... "M
~g ~~ ~~ ~~ -~ ~~... ~ ~ ~ E i
0;0. . ¡¡¡¡ -;;:: -;;:: ~.:¡ ~-;;:~ ~ ~ -;;::: ~
e! ~~.:¡! :! ~~: ~~: ~i~ ¡ i ::~ ~
3 ~ .:¡~ ~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ff~ 3 :: ~ ~ : ~~ ~ ....
~~ ~~ ~'" ;'" ~~~ o"~ ~ ~~.... ê" ~ ;¡~ ~
..~ es ~~ ~~ -;;~~ ~II ¡ Ilt:~ I ~o~ ~
~~ ~: ~g ~g .:¡:: goo o .......~ ,,< ... ~Ot ~
~~ ~,,~~ ~" ""e ~:: u ~~~ ~~ ~ ~:& ~
0'" --...... ...- ...... "Low ~ U... "... U ......" ...
0 """...- ...- þþ~ >"" > -,,~ -"0 - ""e ~
~ 5~:~ :~ ~~~ gg¡¡ : !g~ ~~ ! :¡¡~ '"
0 .... ~ ~ 000 = ,",0= >= '"' 0'" "
~ u
, ~~ ~~ ~i ~~~ N~~ ~ N~~ ~O ~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ a.
..
< . . . . ~
'"
~
o
.;¡;
~ ~
~ " ~
u " ~
< w
~ -- < .
U ~ ...
< a ~ ~
-- ~ "0 "
~ U ~ ~ ~
a < .... U u"
... I < '" ~
~ ~ - ... u
~ ~ a ::: ¿S ~"
0 ~ .... -
~ -;; 1 3 ": -;; - 5;
" - u '" " ..: c
-I~"" g :: ~ ~ ¡;.::
"" ""'" "-
"'" .~... 5" ,0",
'" ~ " ,,~" ó""
c~ :j .:¡ ~ <3 ~ u"
õ '::1"'"0 '" ü" - .> ~
- 0.1'"'" "0 U "0 I" ,,-
5 u~;;¡ " ,,~ .:: g ¿: ¡; -
ó1 ::~ '"' g ;;¡ 'õ ." ~ ,,;" ,~<"Z
;¡ ._" ~.:> u .- , '"
¡- ~I"'" .c ;; '" ~ -' S "s ~
,';13 S '" " " ~... s c" ':3
c. ~::; '" = S ~ 8 ~ '" J... ~::
j i!~ J 3 ~ :¡ ~ ~" ,,",,;:;
;¡ "I >"0 "0 -;:, ~ ~ ~ ~ :: ¿: 4
.... ü3" " ~ " "'" - "- ~ 0
, x: x: = x: == '" ,e¡" 0.
. "
/:.;; 7RrJ
-- -..,.. -.." ..------...
~ r
(3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage
industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned;
thoroughly reviewed by the 110ntgomery Planning
Committee and the City Planning Commission; and,
approved under the City's conditional use permit
process. Except for a preplanned mixed 1 and 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 nontgomery Planning Committee and the Chula
Vista Desi gn Revie\l Committee, may authorize a
maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a
project proposed for development with i n an area
designated "Lo~l/t1edium Density Residential" (3-6
dwell i ng units per acre). Thi s 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 effecti ve or operational in the absence of
its ratification by the Planning Commission.
The subject resi denti al bonus would not be
applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior
Housing Development, as defined in Section 19.04.201
of tile Chula Vista r'1unicipal Code or \'ihich qualifies
for an affordable-housing density bonus under
-7-
_. -...-..- .._...~ .-.._--. 1.;;S-ZJ"t1
( (
Committee may determine that the townscape-planning
guidelines of the Town Centre Ilo. I Desi gn Manual are
appropriate, and may request their employment by the
Design review Committee.
c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas shoul d be
promoted in the development of residential, commerci al ,
industrial, and civic projects.
d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of
vehicl es, equipment, or merehandise are to be
artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane
landscaped fiooring, 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 1 andscaped buffer areas and s tri ps between
residential and other land use categories shall be
encouraged.
f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial proj ect
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-
/E 7tf'Ò
_.. -"'--....'--. .. .-.., --...-.- _...--..._---
( ~
( \.
influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is
substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner.
Past subdiyision and resubdivision aetivity 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 signifieantly impaired the Community's
order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and
eirculation. The ~~ontgomery Specific Plan call s for the
improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical
reorganization.
Chula Vista's ei tywi de subdivision controls, which apply to
~10ntgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the
Specific Plan. However, due to the a forementi oned prior
substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented
with special subdivision controls desi gned to foster the more
orderly arrangement of Montgoméry' s street and lot system. Such
speeial 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 control s for r~ontgomery shoul d al so
stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyway s, and the
establishment of new all eys. This emphas is could substantially
reduce on-street and front yard parking and storage, and thereby
improve the overall appearance of Montgomery.
Properly coordinated wi th other regulatory measures, the City 's
subdivision controls, as amended in accordance wi th the above
suggestions, will facil itate the realization of the goal s and
objectives of the Montgomery Community.
-11-
/378'd
-:-:----- - - - ---. .-
.." .-. _. __0"- _0.....- ...~....._. ....._0
" ( (
~
C. Code Enforcement and Coordination
While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the
public safety, heal th, and general I~el fare, it also provides a
plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to
foster nei ghborll00d integrity; reduce or stop cor:1munity decline;
and, promote revitalization.
Code enforcement has publie relations ramifications, and should be
conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with
other community programs, such as rehabil itation, redevelopment,
and conservation. In ~1ontgomery, the code enforcement program
should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the
Specific Plan.
D. Conservation, Rehahilitation, and Redevelopment
The r'10ntgomery Specifi c Plan calls for the revita 1 i za ti on of
Montgomery, and sets forth s pecifi c proposals to ach i eve thi send.
These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the
selective application of urban renewal measures, such as
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures
may be appl ied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the
circumstances of the particular project.
.
1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renel'¡a 1 ,
and is applicable only \~here the decline of an area is not
significant. It often involves the cl eaning and sprucing up
of residential neighborhoods or commerc i a 1 areas, and the
provision of improved public services, Ivorks, and
infrastructure. Conservation proj ec ts can be effecti vely
undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and usually
do not entail extensive contributions from local çovernment.
-13-
/37JÔ
_._0_- --
-- .__.__.._...__oo_-~......._.._.._._....,_.........
. .
. " [ (
. -~
.,
E. The ~ontgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program
The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) is a newly
instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining
well organized publ ic and private efforts to upgrade the physical
facilities of Montgomery. Specifi c components of the program
include:
-- identification and prioritization of needed public capital
improvements;
-- promoti on and expans i on of the City I s housing rehabil itation
loan program;
-- publie education on zoning, building and other City codes;
-- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up
programs.
The program is proposed to concentra te its focus and resources in
limited target areas. The foll owi ng factors shall be considered
prior to the determination of a neighborhood's el igibil ity for
target-area status:
-- need for public improvements;
.
-- need for housing rehabilitation;
-- neighborhood character;
-- income status;
-- demonstration of local support for NRP.
-15-
-- - _..- ----"..-- /37t-tJ
_. . -------~...._._.-