HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2000/07/19
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
5:00 p.m. WORKSHOP/REDEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
6:00 p.m. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
Conference Room 5
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALUMOTlONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 14, 2000
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 three minutes.
1. PU B LlC HEARl NG: PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in
church service; and for increasing the number of participants in the
adult day care center from 18 to 60. Chula Vista Community Church.
Continued from Planning Commission meeting June 14, 2000.
Staff: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-00-14: AnappealoftheZoningAdministrator'sdecisiontodeny
a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of 6'6"
within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3'6" is
permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R-1
Zone, with a General Plan designation of Residential
Staff: Steve Power, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Review upcoming meeting calendar.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Planning Commission
- 2 -
July 19, 2000
ADJOURNMENT:
to a Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2000.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Thomas, Cortes, O'Neill
Absent:
Staff Present:
Commissioners Ray and Hall
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Caroline Lewis, Development Services Technician
Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager
Debra DePratti, Principal Community Development Specialist
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1. Appointment of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for FY 00-01.
Bob Thomas was appointed as Chair of the Planning Commission for FY 00-01, and Kevin
O'Neill was appointed Vice Chair.
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Amendment to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a concrete
batch plant as an allowed use.
Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager, Community Development
Department reported that this item was continued by the Planning Commission at the May 17,
2000 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to present additional information regarding the
economic development of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area, as well as a resolution
approving the language change to the implementation plan.
Staff's initial recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the amendment remains the
same and the previous resolution reflecting that recommendation is included should the
Commission agree with staff's position.
,-- ... -_..~ .,_.,~.__...._._--._.,"-_.__.,._--- _... -.-....,..-
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
June 14, 2000
At the May 17'h public hearing opposition was voiced from two adjacent businesses and a
speaker who stated he represented a group of residents. The applicant presented information that
suggested that a concrete batch plant could be designed and operated in such a manner as to
meet the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
Debra DePratti, Project Manager for Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area presented an
overview of the goals of the Plan as well as activities that have occurred since that time. Ms.
DePratti stated that the vision of the Plan, which was adopted in 1983, was to implement a
program of development that would change the nature of that area, from heavy industrial uses to
light industrial uses such as warehousing, industrial office, light manufacturing and the like.
The General Plan designation for this area was all Industrial and the Implementation Plan
rezoned and overlayed a Light Industrial Zone for this area which prohibited any uses that are
prohibited in the IL and I Zones.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator commented on the City's investment on the
property across the street, which will house the Public Works Corp Yard. Additionally, the site
will house a Compressed Natural Gas and Hydrogen Fuel Cell fleet services building, which is
very sensitive to dust.
In an effort to encourage consumer purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, a public CNG fueling
station will be located on Maxwell Road.
Mr. Meacham further stated that when the City first contemplated this move, the landfill had an
estimated 8-year life on its current permit. The County of San Diego has approved extending the
life of the permit to 28 years, therefore, any business that could exacerbate what is considered an
existing problem in maintaining a clean roadway would be counter-productive.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill stated that his perspective on this matter encompassed a broad view and a
realistic projection on the longevity of some of these uses (i.e. landfill, auto-wreckers), which are
driven by supply and demand. He also expressed disagreement with staff's position on the
appropriateness of a concrete batch plant use in this area in light of the existing uses and the
future location of the Public Works Corp Yard, CNG fueling facility and school district bus yard.
Cmr. O'Neill also inquired aboutthe future of the auto recycling/wrecking businesses in that area
and if such a use is permitted anywhere else in the City.
Ms. DePratti stated that she appreciated Commissioner O'Neill's comments on a number of
issues, however, they are site-specific, and the issue at hand is a proposal to amend the Plan for
that area, which is general in nature and not site-specific. The Commission is charged with
determining if amending the Plan is consistent with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan.
Ms. DePratti further stated that there were existing auto wreckers on the property that was at one
time within the County of San Diego's jurisdiction and subsequently was annexed into the City of
Chula Vista. Those uses were "grandfathered" in and the businesses were requested to apply,
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
June 14, 2000
through the Redevelopment Agency, for a Conditional Use Permit, all of which have "sunset
clauses" that will sunset between the years of 2004 and 2006. These permits will only be
renewed upon request by the business and on a case-by-case basis, with no obligation from the
City to renew them.
Ms. De Pratti further stated that presently there is no zoning within the City of Chula Vista that
would allow the establishment of a new auto-wrecking business.
Commissioner Cortes stated that as former Chair of the Otay Valley Rd. Project Area Committee,
the Committee was charged with implementing the goals envisioned for that redevelopment area
by encouraging more positive investments in that area, therefore, he is committed that upholding
the integrity of the Implementation Plan.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that recently the Commission reviewed a proposal for a
commercial site that was planned a number of years ago and was envisioned to be a pedestrian-
oriented village-type commercial site. Ultimately, what was revealed is that there is no market
demand for that type of concept and as difficult as it was, a decision had to be made based on
realistic market demands, therefore the concept plan was modified.
Similarly, the Implementation Plan that is currently driving the allowed uses for this
redevelopment area, was developed in 1983 and in his opinion, it is totally feasible that the Plan
may need to be amended at this time (17 years later), which as previously stated, is what the
Commission will be voting on, to recommend or not, that the Plan be amended.
Commissioner Castaneda further stated that it is unconscionable to him that a concrete batch
plant would not be an allowed use along side a landfill, auto-wrecker, and future heavy
institutional uses as the City's Public Works Corp Yard, and school district's bus yard.
Furthermore, the only other site that is zoned to allow a batch plant is on Bayfront, which is
inherently ecologically sensitive, irrespective of it requiring approval from the Port District.
The City of Chula Vista is creating a tremendous demand for concrete with every Master Planned
Community that is being built and it is only fair and equitable that a concrete batch plant be
located within the City, which would benefit from tax revenues, and not have to be transported
from another jurisdiction.
Public Hearing Opened 7:25.
Dave Shibley, 1923 Bedford Pl., Escondido, CA, representing Arie de Jong, owner of the
property, stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting when this item was first
considered, as well as tonight, a lot of the discussion centered around site specific concerns,
although legitimate, deviate from the proposal at hand, to amend the Implementation Plan. The
amendment would allow the applicant to move forward and submit an application for a Special
Use Permit, at which time all site-specific questions and concerns would be addressed.
Arnold Veldkamp, Superior Ready-Mix stated he does not consider a batch plant a heavy
industrial use considering that in the City of Chula Vista a batch plant is allowed by right in the
industrial zone, and in the County of San Diego is allowed by right in two manufacturing zones
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
June 14, 2000
and under three commercial zones.
As stated at the last meeting, there exists a bias against batch plants, because there is an existing
batch plant in Chula Vista where rock crushing and processing is taking place, and is therefore
generating much more dust pollution. The Superior Ready-Mix batch plant facility would be
paved and watered-down every day.
Public Hearing closed 7:35.
MSC (Castaneda/O'neill) (3-2-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve Resolution PCM-00-23 amending the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a
concrete batch plant as a use allowed by Special Use Permit. Motion failed.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in
church service; and for increasing the number of participants in the
adult day care center from 18 to 60. Chula Vista Community Church.
Commissioner Thomas stated for the record that he spoke with the applicant and attended the
community meeting as an observer.
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner, reported that the Chula Vista Community
Church located at 271 East J Street is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for:
o an outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and
o to increase the number of participants, from 18 to 60, in the existing adult day care
center located on church premises.
The day care center is licensed by the State to have 60 participants, and they currently have 50 to
60 participants, however, a CUP from the City is required.
City staff conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts and the Environmental
Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts,
therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Commission's consideration and
adoption.
The project site is bordered by single family residential in all directions and consists of a church
building (sanctuary, fellowship room and classrooms); 81 parking spaces and some storage sheds;
2 basketball hoops, one of which is approximately 15 feet from the northern property line and
the other 50 feet from the property line; and the outdoor stage. At the southwest corner of the
property is a house that was converted into church offices and a preschool.
Since 1991, a 270 square foot wooden stage and a mobile truck have been situated in the
northwest corner of the church parking lot where drive-in church services have been conducted
on stage from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings. The drive-in church service provides
an alternative style of worship to individuals who would otherwise not attend church, i.e. senior
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
June 14, 2000
citizens and/or disabled individuals who find it difficult to ambulate. Approximately 40 to 55
cars attend the drive-in worship service.
The 4 foot high wooden stage measuring 6' X 22' is attached to the rear of the truck, which
contains the sound equipment. The truck is opened during the service to provide a stage back-
drop access to various items used for the service i.e. a piano, microphone and a small monitor.
All sounds from the stage are broadcast by radio into the radios inside the cars of the people
attending. There are no outside speakers on stage other than the small monitor so that the
worship team can hear the tape music. Loud speakers for amplification are not used or proposed.
Since 1984, an adult day care center administered by the non-profit Adult Protective Services of
San Diego County has been serving an average of 50 people per day, Monday through Friday
from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the Fellowship Room of the church.
There are 3 to 4 Red Cross mini buses and 3 vans owned by Adult Protective Services that
transport the participants to the center and back home each day. Drivers utilize the west
entrance of the church for loading and unloading passengers which takes approximately 15
minutes per vehicle.
In response to complaint letters received from neighbors, staff conducted a meeting with the
applicant and their neighbors on May 10, 2000 to discuss their concerns about the project.
Marvin Amick, the neighbor directly behind the church parking lot is concerned with, sound
emanating from the drive-in services; visual impacts of the stage from his property, and
basketball hoops that encourage kids playing at all hours when there is no other activity going on
in the church.
Phillip Hoffer, the neighbor whose home is directly across from the area where loading and
unloading takes place has complained that diesel fumes are a nuisance and have affected the
health of his child.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and
adopt resolution approving the outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and approve increasing
the number of participants from 18 to 60 in the adult day care center.
The resolution contains the following conditions of approval addressing the neighbor's concerns:
. that a 6 foot high fence be erected along the northern property line to act as both a sound and
visual barrier
. that the 2 permanent basketball hoops in the parking lot be removed and allowing the use of
portable hoops for church activities, and
. that an access ramp be installed at the south end of the building to enable loading and
unloading of participants.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill asked for clarification on whether the fence would need to be a masonry
sound wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
June 14,2000
Ms. Vander Bie stated that Planning staff conducted two site visits on Sunday mornings and the
Environmental Planner who prepared the Initial Study and Neg Dec determined that an acoustical
analysis was not necessary because the amount of sound was so minimal. Therefore, it is staff's
opinion that by erecting a 6 foot tall wooden fence along the northern property line would
certainly minimize any noise that may be generated by the drive-in service.
Commissioner Thomas stated that as a former member of the Chula Vista Community Church,
he designed and built the stage.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City has received any complaints on these uses since the
inception of the day care and drive-in church in 1984 and 1991 respectively.
Ms. Vander Bie responded thatthe only complaints on record date back to a couple of years ago.
Public Hearing opened 8:05
Robb Hurt, 2562 Walking Stick Ct., Chula Vista, read into the record a letter from Pastor
Veenstra, who was unable to attend the meeting due to health problems. Pastor Veenstra's letter
addressed the following concerns with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution:
Condition #9 - relating to diesel emission nuisance
"A handicapped ramp shall be installed at the front entrance of the church, and loading and
unloading of Adult Day Care participants shall take place rather than atthe side entrance closer to
the adjacent landowner."
Response: As stated on the Negative Declaration prepared by the Environmental Review
Coordinator, no significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed project.
This requirement would inflict an undue hardship on the day care participants because the
majority are unstable in their gait and use ambulatory aides i.e. cane, walkers, or wheelchairs.
This would require the participants to walk 275 feet instead of 20 feet from the drop-off area to
the closest handicapped access door into the Adult Day Care Center.
Condition #5 - relating to noise nuisance
"Two existing basketball hoops in the church parking lot shall b removed. A portable basketball
hoop used for church activities shall be placed a minimum of fifty feet from the property lines."
Response: We request that only one basketball hoop that is closest to the north property line (20
feet) be removed, and that the other basketball hoop, which is 75 feet away from the property
line remain.
Condition #7
"A security plan that includes gating the church driveway when church facilities are not in use,
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
June 14, 2000
and reducing the number of parking lot lights at night shall be submitted to the Crime Prevention
Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department for review and approval, and subsequent
implementation."
Response: How does gating relate to the CUP and will this be a requirement of other churches
as well.
Marvin Amick, 630 Mission Ct., Chula Vista, resides directly behind the church parking lot stated
he opposes the approval of the permit and believes the drive-in church in this location is
inappropriate. Mr. Amick further stated that they have lived with the drive-in services since its
inception in 1991, and they can hear speaking and singing emanating from the services.
Although it has not been an egregious problem, it is a combination of uses that occur in the
parking lot i.e. basketball-playing during hours when there is no church activity, parking lot
I ights, and visual bl ighting created by the stage and truck that has created, more than anything, a
nuisance to live with.
Ms. Amick read into the record a note from Mrs. Santos who lives across the street from the
church. "I feel that this should not be approved because of the noise. We, too, have complained
and the church has not been responsive. "
Mal Murphy, Executive Director of Adult Protective Serivces, Inc. stated the Center has been at
this location since 1984 providing excellent quality care for its participants and providing a much
needed service to this community. Mr. Murphy further stated he is available to answer questions
from the Commission.
Armenia Ishkamian, Program Manager at South Bay Adult Day Health Center, 301 E. J Street,
Chula Vista, restated Pastor Veenstra's concern with moving the loading and unloading site to the
south side of the facilities and urged the Commission to be mindful of the hardship this would be
to the participants, especially during inclement weather.
Ms. Ishkamian also stated that not all of the vehicles need to have their engines running in order
to operate the lift and they have been told to turn off their vehicles when they are loading and
unloading; a greater effort will be made to ensure that the drivers comply. One reason why
there is an apparent non-compliance with this request is because there is a high turn-over rate of
drivers; perhaps larger and more visible signs posted in the area where they load and unload
would help.
Public Hearing closed 8:30.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he is supportive of the service the adult day care center
provides to the community and the concerns with diesel emissions can be easily mitigated by
keeping a tighter enforcement and ensuring the drivers turn off their engines.
Cmr. O'Neill further stated that he does not support a drive-in church in this location because the
surrounding area is too residential. Allowing drive-in churches in residential areas is probably
going beyond the scope of allowing churches in residential areas and in his opinion, the issues
surrounding the drive-in services with sound emanating from the service and the visual blighting
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
June 14,2000
created by the stage that is attached to an inoperable heavy truck is going beyond those
parameters.
Commissioner Cortes stated that the conditions of approval that staff if recommending are not
unreasonable and the concerns that have been raised are not egregious and are mitigable with a
little effort, therefore he supports conditionally granting the CUP.
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there has been some discussion about
bifurcating the application and rendering a decision separately on the adult day care center and
the drive-in church. If that is the direction that the Commission may be considering, then it
would be her recommendation to continue this item to allow staff time to make the necessary
changes to the resolutions addressing and conditioning the two uses separately.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he too shares Commissioner O'Neill's concerns and is
supportive of the adult day care center. He would also feel more comfortable continuing this item
not only to afford staff the needed time to prepare the necessary documents to bifurcate the
application, but also to allow him time to visit the drive-in church when services are being
conducted, thereby allowing him the opportunity to make a more informed decision on this
application.
MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (5-0-2-0) that this item be continued to July 191h and direct staff to
bifurcate the permits and include information on potential additional traffic safety measures to
improve traffic flow to the entrance into the church parking lot. Motion carried.
4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM-00-26; Consideration of a request to change street names in the
Sun bow Development Phases 1B (Units 3,4, & 16), Phase 2A & 2B,
Phase 1C (Units 5,6,13,14,15) to honor deceased Chula Vista War
Veterans.
Background: Caroline Lewis, Development Services Technician, reported that at the City
Council meeting of May 9, 2000 Council member Salas stated that in 1990 the City accepted a
proposal made by the Veterans Advisory Committee, and committed themselves to recognizing
Chula Vista deceased war veterans by naming the street after them in the Sunbow development, a
Master Planned Community that was then in the initial planning stages. Subsequently, Council
directed staff to investigate this issues leading to the City not following through with the proposal.
The street boundaries surrounding the proposed area are to the north, the Sharp Chula Vista
Medical Center and the new Veterans Home; Olympic Parkway to the South; Telegraph Canyon
Road to the north; and Medical Center Drive to the West.
In June 1990 Sunbow Associated submitted a list to the City, selected from the Plaque at
Memorial Park and compiled by a committee of five veterans. All appropriate City departments
reviewed and approved the list, including the Post Office, however, 8 names were excluded
because the Planning Department indicated they were similar to existing street names.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 9 .
June 14,2000
Subsequently, between 1990 and 1998, Ayres Land Company acquired the property from
Sunbow Associates and more recently tracts were sold to home builders, Kaufman & Broad, and
Centex.
Both Kaufman & Broad and Centex submitted a new I ist of proposed street names for Phase 1 B
and 1 C respectively in September 1998 and March 1999, which did not include any Veteran
names. The street names were approved and Final Maps (13720 and 13917) were recorded.
Ayres Land Company has also submitted a new list of proposed names for Phase 2A and 2B,
which do not include any Veteran names, and in April 1999 staff approved the list of names. The
project is currently in plan check with the Engineering Department, and the Final Map has not yet
been recorded.
The current developer has agreed to work with the City to ensure that the street names accurately
reflect the names of deceased Chula Vista war veterans. Out of a total of 804 future homes that
are yet to be built, presently there are 25 existing families living on Cirrus Place and Suncrest
Drive that would be affected by the street name change. Staff mai led each of these 25 famil ies a
letter that specified the proposal to change the street names.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM-00-26
recommending that the City Council approve the name changes of streets in the Sunbow
Development (Sunbow Phase 1 B,2A,2B & 1 C) to honor deceased Chula Vista War Veterans
previously approved in 1990.
Public Hearing Opened 6:30
Joe Casillas, 1060 Calma Drive, Chula Vista, gave a brief history of how this proposal came
about back in 1990 and urged the Commission to make a formal recommendation to the City
Council that it move forward with this benevolent gesture to honor and recognize these war
veterans who gave their lives in service to their country.
Gregory Villarreal, 1447 Cirrus PI., Chula Vista, stated he is one of the 25 existing residents that
just moved in and he opposes the proposal because of the hardship it would create on his family
in having to go through another address change, making all of the necessary arrangements with
the Post Office, bank checking accounts, DMV records, utilities, ete.
Mr. Villarreal further stated that he supports the proposal on its own merit, however, he suggested
that the name changes occur on the streets that have not yet been developed and no residents
have moved in to.
John Kober, 1439 Cirrus Pl., Chula Vista, stated he too is not in support of the street name
change on his street, as he is one of the 25 existing residents. Mr. Kober stated that he lives in the
first Phase of the development and it is his understanding that homes have been sold up to Phase
IV, and these new residents are in escrow but haven't moved in yet.
Public Hearing Closed at 7:00
Planning Commission Minutes
- 10 -
June 14, 2000
Commission Discussion:
Chair Willett inquired how many street names are being proposed.
Ms. Lewis responded that there are approximately 41 street names being proposed.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he whole-heartedly supports the proposal, however, if the
street signs do not somehow incorporate a visual design that sets them apart from every other
street sign in the City, it would be an exercise in futility, because other than close friends and
relatives of the deceased veterans, no one would know why they are named that way.
Furthermore, the purpose of these street names are to memorialize these individuals beyond their
survivors' life time, therefore, he urged the responsible parties to be very mindful of this when
designing these signs. Some examples could be:
o to include the date of birth and date of expiration, and war they fought in
o to include a Purple Heart emblem
o to include a George Washington silhouette
Commissioner Castaneda asked if there were other streets within that subdivision that could
accommodate all of the names that are on the list, excluding Cirrus PI. and Suncrest Drive.
Jim Sandoval responded that there were no other street s in this subdivision, and it is unknown if
there is another developer in another area that would be willing to accept this proposal.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that although he recognizes the inconvenience and burden on the
existing 25 residents in changing their address, Sunbow is still the most unique and appropriate
location because the new Veterans Homes are located there and it is the originally envisioned
area. This proposal has been put off long enough and should move forward and be expedited.
Commissioner Cortes stated he concurs with Commission O'Neill's comments and indicated that
the City should move forward and expedite this proposal so as to avoid impacting any more
future residents that will gradually be moving into the area.
MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (5-0-0-2) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM-00-26
recommending that the City Council approve the name changes of streets in the Sunbow
Development (Sunbow Phase 1 B,2A,2B & 1C) to honor deceased Chula Vista War Veterans
previously approved in 1990 with the following recommendation:
o That the street sign design should incorporate an emblem that would denote the
significance of the street name. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 11 -
June 14,2000
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Assistant Director Sandoval reviewed the schedule of upcoming
meetings.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2000.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
L
ITEM TITLE:
Pub]ic Hearing: PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage
and drive-in church service; and for increasing the number of participants
in the adult day care center from 18 to 60. (Continued from Planning
Commission hearing June 14, 2000.) Applicant: Chu]a Vista Community
Church
The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in
church service in the parking lot of the Chu]a Vista Community Church, 271 East J Street; and
for increasing the number of participants in the adult day care center on the church premises from
18 to 60.
City staff conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts associated with this project,
and the City's Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration (Attachment 4) has been prepared by City
staff and will be considered by the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 4) that has
been prepared for this project (IS-00-21); adopt attached Resolution PCC-00-31A (Attachment 2)
approving the outdoor stage and drive-in church service; and adopt attached Resolution PCC-OO-
31B (Attachment 3), approving the increase of 18 to 60 participants for the adult day care center
on the church premises.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Negative Declaration was considered and unanimously approved by the Resource
Conservation Commission on April ] 7, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for an existing outdoor stage
and drive-in church service, and the request to increase the number of participants in the adult day
care center from 18 to 60 (the maximum already being accommodated). A copy of the staffreport
(without attachments) from that meeting is attached (Attachment 5), as well as draft minutes from
the meeting (Attachment 6).
The Commissioners requested that the project be continued to July 19, 2000 and asked that the
proposed resolution be bifurcated so that conditional use permits for the outdoor stage and the day
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
care center could be considered separately. Therefore, two separate resolutions are being
proposed.
At the June 14'h meeting, some Planning Commissioners expressed concerns that the drive-in
church service was an inappropriate use in the residential neighborhood. They feared that people
attending the drive-in service might keep their vehicles running for air conditioning on hot
mornings. Or that they might ran their windows down for fresh air and create a parking lot full
of car radios broadcasting the live church service. Staff has included a condition of approval
requiring that car engines be turned off during the church service.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he wanted to visit the church service himself so that he could
observe how it is conducted and how it affects the neighborhood. Chair Willett stated that he had
visited the church site during one of the drive-in services, and that there appeared to be a traffic
problem on J Street when cars left the church parking lot. In particular, without any warning to
vehicles traveling west on J Street, cars seemed to stack up at the intersection just west of the
church as they pulled out of the parking lot. Planning staff has confirmed with the Traffic
Division of the City's Engineering Department that adequate site distance exists on J Street
between the church's driveway and the stop sign. A "STOP AHEAD" sign is posted near the
driveway.
Commissioner O'Neil questioned why the stage was placed so close to adjacent properties, and
suggested it be moved further away so that any noise impacting neighbors would be minimized.
Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the stage to be moved.
Commissioner O'Neil also questioned whether or not the parked truck that supplements the stage
violates any City regulations. The Municipa] Code allows one inoperable vehicle on a residential
property if it is not in the front yard setback, is in a garage or carport, or is behind a solid six-foot
high fence. The existing truck is in the rear of the property, and applicant's proposal includes
erecting a six-foot high fence. However, the truck is a commercial vehicle, as defined in Section
10.52.090 of the Chula Vista Municipa] Code, and parked commercial vehicles are prohibited in
residential zones. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to
remove the truck from the church property within eight weeks of adoption of Resolution PCC-OO-
31A, or code enforcement measures wiU be taken.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permits in accordance with the
attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-00-31A, to allow the outdoor stage and drive-in
church service; and the attached Planning Commission Reso]ution PCC-00-3IB, to increase the
number of daycare participants from 18 to 60.
..2
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-OO-31A
3. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-OO-31B
4. Negative Declaration
5. Staff Report (without attachments) from June 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
6. Draft minutes from June 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
3
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
,_.
;-'\
i
;-- \
" ;' ./~
, " '
~/
".-----
~. ,
/ ~8r '\"'~ / '
""/,/./;-'" 'Iy'~, .~~,>o>:;; '-<2 /-, ~
.' // ...'--" ;;=::::::~.~::~t~::r:~,/\~~
.;;" i", .... 8r",-~' "\",5),
~' -" ,'" / - 'T'I:'- ___c..
,,/'--,<~:~ '-Vi" '--~r ~
V
,
,
,
,
/
--
,
,-
~
'~'<'-'
- -'
------- -
~
\\~
/~)o~
1'&J:
-<;)o~
6'0
;s-
\
\
,
\
L-.
L
\1\
./",
\/
'Z,
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT'
LOCATOR PROJECT CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 271 East" J" Street if
ADDRESS: Request 1) Proposed addition of drive-in service and a stage
for an existing church. 2) Approval of an increasE
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: in the number of people allowed (from existing 18
NORTH No Scale PCC - 00-31 to DroDosed 60\ in the adult dav-care center.
h:\home\planning\hector\locators\pcc0031.cdr 01/10/00
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCC- 00-31A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW AN OUTDOOR STAGE AND DRIVE-IN CHURCH
SERVICE AT THE CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH, 271
J STREET.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this Reso]ution is
diagrammaticany represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, consists
of approximately 2.2 acres at 27] J Street; and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2000, a duly verified application for a Conditional
Use Pennit (PCC-00-3]) was filed by the Chula Vista Community Church
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested pennission to allow an outdoor stage and
drive-in church service; and,
C. Environmental Detennination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements ofCEQA, the Environmental
Review Coordinator detennined that the Project required the preparation of an
Initial Study. Such study was prepared by the City ofChu]a Vista, and based on
such study, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review;
and,
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the Planning Commission on June 14, 2000 to hear public testimony with
regard to same. At that hearing, the Project was continued to Ju]y ]9,2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find,
detennine and resolve as fonows:
s-
ATTACHMENT 2
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration issued for this
Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
III. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration prepared for this Project
reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission.
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
A. 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 proposed use at the location wi11 contribute to the genera] well being of the
community because:
1. The drive-in service provides a worship center for seniors or handicapped
people in Chula Vista and the South Bay Community who find it difficult
to get out of their cars when they go to worship; and
B. 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.
Approval of this project includes conditions to: reduce miscellaneous noise
generated on the church property, and reduce visual impacts to adjacent
neighbors. With the implementation of said conditions, the proposed use wi11 not
be detrimental to the health, safety or genera] welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes, and regulations wi11 be
required prior to issuance of development permits.
2
&;
D. 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.
Approval of this Project, as conditioned, is in substantia] conformance with City
policies and the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY
APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW:
V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The Planning Commission hereby grants the request to anow an outdoor stage and drive-in church
service at the Chu]a Vista Community Church, 271 J Street, Conditional Use Permit PCC-OO-31,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Within eight weeks of adoption of Reso]ution PCC-00-31A, a building permit for the
outdoor stage, and a separate permit for lighting, shan be applied for and obtained.
2. Within eight weeks of adoption of Resolution PCC-00-31A, the outdoor stage shall be
relocated within the church parking lot so that it will be a minimum of 50 feet from the
property line.
3. Within eight weeks of adoption of Reso]ution PCC-OO-31A, the inoperable truck used in
association with the stage shall be removed from the church property.
4. The outdoor stage may be used for one one-hour drive-in church service each Sunday. Any
other use of the stage will require approval of a Special Event permit or modification to
this Conditional Use Permit from the City of Chu]a Vista.
5. Car engines shall be turned off during the drive-in church service.
6. Amplifiers shall not be used for the drive-in church service.
7. A six-foot high sound barrier shall be erected along the northern property line according
to the specifications submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application.
8. Two existing basketban hoops in the church parking lot shall be removed. A portable
basketball hoop used for church activities shall be placed a minimum of fifty feet from the
property lines.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the outdoor stage, five striped parking spaces
shall be added to the church parking lot.
3
7
10. A security plan that includes gating the church driveway when church facilities are not in
use, and reducing the number of parking lot lights at night shall be submitted to the Crime
Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department for review and approval, and
subsequent implementation.
8. Comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, permits, City ordinances,
standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Reso]ution.
VI. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT
]. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of
the Municipa] Code.
2. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property.
3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for revocation or
modification of permit.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Exhibit "BOO), indicating the
Applicant has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will
implement same.
VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The Planning Commission directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file same with the City Clerk.
IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Reso]ution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event the applicant or its assigns or successors in interest chanenge anyone or more terms,
provisions or conditions, and are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shan be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 19th day
of Ju]y, 2000, by the fonowing vote, to wit:
4
?J
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
5
"f
Bob Thomas, Chair
...._-,._. ._._-,.,.._.,-",~,,,-_._,- .,,~-,"-'-"'_.',~' ..~_..,_._- .,----- ..-
"''''
,
...
i /
/ /
.....J /
0/.____
-----------.---- ,
\
,r\ ""_~\ /
\ \ '"' /;"4S'1' '--~
\" \....------ \\, ','" ""'" ,i~ I/~" ''-t.. ' ,;; '-<2, ~,
'c-~ :':-'0.,~,// '/,,, j' S'1'Ii'.<' " ~
\ ,) / / ~/ / I " c.....-l::,.. "~
\ II'" <'", /
\ u / V
v ',>
;'i'/,~
. Ii'&~
"'I~
6'0
~
\
\~
\)0
\ !
'Z
'c HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT'
LOCATOR ~~~; CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 271 East" J" Street
ADORESS: 10 Request 1) Proposed addition of drive-in service and a stage
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: for an existing church. 2) Approval of-an Increase
in the number of people allowed (from existing 18
NORTH No Scale pee - 00-31 to proposed 60) in the adult day-care center.
h:lhomelplanntnglhectorllocatorslpcc0031.cdr 01/10/00
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. PCC- 00-31B
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ADULT DAYCARE
PARTICIPANTS FROM 18 TO 60 AT THE CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY CHURCH, 271 J STREET.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, consists
of approximately 2.2 acres at 27] J Street; and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2000, a duly verified application for a Conditional
Use Permit (PCC-00-3]) was filed by the Chu]a Vista Community Church
("App]icant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested permission to aI]ow increasing the number
of adult day care participants from] 8 to 60; and,
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental
Review Coordinator determined that the Project required the preparation of an
Initial Study. Such study was prepared by the City ofChula Vista, and based on
such study, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review;
and,
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly caned and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the Planning Commission on June ]4,2000 to hear public testimony with
regard to same. At that hearing, the Project was continued to July] 9,2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby fmd,
determine and resolve as follows:
{ I
ATTACHMENT 3
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration issued for this
Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
III. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration prepared for this Project
reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission.
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility, which will contribute, to the genera] well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed uses at the location contribute to the genera] wen being of the
community because the Adult Day Care Center provides respite for caregivers
of low-income seniors and disabled people. Participants receive health
monitoring and therapies, such as speech, physical and occupational, as well as
nutrition monitoring. In addition, they participate in activities, such as Bingo,
Trivia, and sewing, and in programs conducted by history, communications and
art teachers. Hospitalization or convalescent home occupancy for seniors may
be postponed an average of five years through this system of adult day care.
B. 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.
Approval of this project includes conditions to: reduce miscellaneous noise
generated on the church property; reduce visual impacts to adjacent neighbors;
and reduce the effects of idling buses. With the implementation of said
conditions, the proposed use will not 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.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
2
f2
---.- ._~._..._"_..._--_.._...._---~-- --.--..-..-----.,- ...--.,--
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes, and regulations will be
required prior to issuance of development permits.
D. 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.
Approval of this Project, as conditioned, is in substantia] conformance with City
policies and the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY
APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW:
V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The Planning Commission hereby grants the request to increase the number of participants in the
adult day care center from 18 to 60 at the Chu]a Vista Community Church, Conditional Use
Permit PCC-00-3I, subject to the following conditions:
1. A six-foot high sound barrier shall be erected along the northern property line according
to the specifications submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application.
2. Two existing basketball hoops in the church parking lot shall be removed. A portable
basketban hoop used for church activities shall be placed a minimum of fifty feet from the
property lines.
3. A security plan that includes gating the church driveway when church facilities are not in
use, and reducing the number of parking lot lights at night shall be submitted to the Crime
Prevention Unit of the Chu]a Vista Police Department for review and approval, and
subsequent implementation.
4. The number of participants in the Adult Day Care Center shall not exceed 60 persons per
day.
5. A handicapped ramp shall be installed at the front entrance of the church, and loading and
unloading of Adult Day Care Participants shall take place there rather than at the side
entrance closer to adjacent ]andowners.
6. Comply with an federal, state and local laws, regulations, permits, City ordinances,
standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Reso]ution.
3
13
VI. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT
1. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of
the Municipal Code.
2. A copy of this resolution shan be recorded against the property.
3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for revocation or
modification of permit.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Exhibit "B"), indicating the
Applicant has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will
implement same.
VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The Planning Commission directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file same with the City Clerk.
IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event the applicant or its assigns or successors in interest challenge anyone or more terms,
provisions or conditions, and are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
iIlega] or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 19th day
of Ju]y, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
4
('1
Diana Vargas, Secretary
5
IS
Bob Thomas, Chair
......."
~
,
..
i J
) <
~~:>/'
---- --------\
---- \
\
'r- I
\ \ ,\, / I E::A..s.,.
\ 1----- 1\ \ '" /~//~. ''/y.,
, \'" .",/' ~
\ ..,.-' ,/ ~ '
-~ '~, /"'~" >/ )"--./',
\~/'-.,( (-::"'V
.,
~~
. ~L\ /
'r<5' '
~l'~ /
6'0$
~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPUCAN1': CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 271 East" J" Street
ADORESS: /G Request 1) Proposed addition of drive-In service and a stage
for an existing church. 2) Approval of-an Increase
SCALE: ALE NUMBER: in the number of people allowed (from existing 18
NORTH No Scale PCC - 00-31 10 orooosed 60) in the adult day-care center.
h:lhomelplanninglheClorllocatorslpcc0031.cdr 01/10/00
EXHffiIT A
Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
ChuJa Vista Community Church
PROJECT LOCATION:
271 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
639-170-26
PROJECT APPLICA.1~T:
Chula Vista Community Church
CASE NO.:
IS-00-21
DATE: April II, 2000
A. Proiect Setting
The 2.2-acre site is fully developed as a church and associated facilities. The facilities
consist of:
Sanctuary building
Fenowship Hall
Classrooms
Entry Hall
Tota]
4,700 sq.ft.
2,880 sq.ft,
2,300 sq .ft.
] 440 sq.ft.
] 1.320 sq. ft.
Parking
8 I spaces
Note: The existing Conditional Use Permit authorizes a total of ]5,750 sq.ft.
Surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Sing1e-family residential;
East: Single-family residential;
West: Sing]e-fami1y residential; and
Sml!h: Sing]e-fami1y residential.
The site does not contain any structures considered to be of historical or archaeological value
based on criteria established by the State of California Historical Preservation Office
(SHPO).
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project is an amendment of the existing Conditional Use Permit (#80-3) that
was approved on October 9, 1979 and amended on August 17, ]981. The requested CUP
amendment would:
/7
Phil ip/eir leh ulavi staichurchn d
04/11100
ATTACHMENT 4
], Authorize the existing 398 square-foot outdoor covered platform and storage area located
in the northeast corner of the property to be used for re]igious services conducted on
Sunday moming between the hours of9:00 a,m. and ]] :00 a.m.;
Increase the authorized Monday through Friday adult day care occupancy from ] 8 to 60
persons; and
3. Authorize the construction of a 6-foot high wooden fence along a portion of the rear
property line. The fence is proposed to be constructed of %" thick wood with a weather
resistant sound absorbing treatment on the church side of the wal1.
o
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The property is zoned as Residential (R-]), and designated residential by the City's General
Plan. The church use of the site is consistent with the General Plan, zoning designation, and
City adopted environmental plans and policies.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
_I\n Initial Study conducted by the City of Chu]a Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project win not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmenta] Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section ]5070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
]. Public Services Impact
Fire
The nearest fire station is located about two miles from the proj ect site. The
estimated response time is less than four minutes. The response time complies
with the City Thresho]d Standards for fIre and medical response time.
Police
The Police Department indicates that current levels of service and response time
wi]) be provided to the proposed land uses.
2. Utility and Service Svstems
Drainage
The Engineering Department indicates that existing on-site drainage is connected
to public storm drain facilities. The off-site drainage facilities are adequate to
serve the proposed project.
Sewer
( ~
PhiJip/eir/chulavista/churchnd
2
04/1 1100
The Engineering Department determined that the existing sanitary sewer system is
adequate to convey and treat the sewage that would be generated by the proposed
project. The project win comply with the adopted Sewer Thresho]d Standard.
S treets/Traffic
The adopted Traffic Threshold Standard requires that arterial segments must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS
"D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
No intersection may reach a LOS "F" during the average weekday peak-hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempt from this policy. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
E. Public Comments
Several comment letters were received at the end of the public review period. The letters
address the activities current1y conducted at the Community Church. The letters do not
address environmental issues associated with the proposed amendments to the
Conditional Use Permit.
F. Mitigation Necessarv to A void Significant Effects
As indicated on the attached checklist no environmental factors were identified as
"Potentially Significant Un]ess Mitigated", therefore mitigation is not required.
{f
P hihp/eirl chulavistal chu rchnd
3
04/11/00
G, Consultation
I. Individuals and Or2:anizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning Division
Kim Vander Bie, Planning Division
Doug Perry, Fire Marshall
Sarnir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
Bever]y B]essent, Planning Division
Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department
M.J. Donnelly, Engineering Department
App]icant's Agency:
William Behun, Architect
2. Documents
Chula Vista Genera] Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
TitJe 19, Chu1a Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review
period for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of
the City of Chu]a Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of
this project is available from the Chula Vista P1anning Department, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 9]910.
~. ~~.
M~~~gi ~
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: ~/o:lP/ pO
, -
2P
Philip/eir/chuJavista/churchnd
4
04/1 1/00
Case No.IS-OO-21
EJ'.'VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Chula Vista Community Church
2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 271 East"J" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 422-7850
4. Name of Proposal: Chula Vista Community Church
5. Date of Checklist: April II, 2000
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignirlCaDt
Un!",
Mitigated
I..essthaQ
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
ti!
b) Conflict with app1icable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: The 2.2-acre site is fully developed as a church and associated facilities. The proposed
project is an amendment of the existing Conditional Use Permit (#80-3) that was approved on October
9, 1979 and amended on August 17, 1981.
o
o
o
ti!
o
o
o
ti!
o
o
o
ti!
The requested CUP amendment would:
1. Authorize the existing 398 square-foot outdoor covered platform and storage area located in the
northeast comer of the property to be used for outdoor religious services conducted on Sunday
morning between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.:
2. Increase the authorized Monday through Friday adult day care occupancy from 18 to 60 persons;
and
3. Authorize the construction of a 6-foot high wooden fence along a portion of the rear property line.
The fence is proposed to be constructed of *" thick wood with a weather resistant sound absorbing
treatment on the church side of the wall.
d.-/
Phi] ip/eirl chulavista/ churchlS
I
4/] 1/00
,_._,.,.".._.,--.,..
Pote.alially
1'()(~tialI) Significant Less than
Sipific:aut UoJess Signifkanl !lio
Impact Mitigated Imp~ct JWp3ct
Participants in the adult day care program are housed in the fellowship building at the rear of the
sanctuary building. The Adult Day Care is operated Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m, Participants are transported to and from the facility by Red Cross vans.
The property is zoned as Residential (R-I), and designated residential by the City's General Plan. The
site is on the north side of "J" Street between Melrose Avenue and Mission Court. Surrounding land
uses to the north, east and west are single-family residential homes, Single-family residential uses are
also located across" J" Street to the south.
The church use of the site is consistent with the General Plan, zoning designation, and City adopted
environmental plans and p01icies. There are no agricultural uses in the area. The requested
amendments wou1d not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e,g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments:
The proposed CUP amendments would not contribute to local population growth. No
buildings would be removed to accommodate the requested facilities.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) U nstab]e earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 0
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 0
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 0
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 0
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 0
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake? l..,"'L,
Phil ip/eir/chulavistal chuTchl S 2 4/] 1/00
g) Exposure of people or property ro geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: There are no known geophysical conditions present that would expose people to ge010gic
or earth hazards. Not grading or new construction is proposed. No geophysical
impacts would result.
PotentiaDJ
PotenLiaU~. Siguificanl lA=th~
Si:::niIicaot Un!", Significant "
Impact Mitil':atl"d ImpaCl ImpaC1
0 :J :J "
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 0
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 0
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any D 0 0 0
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 0
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 0
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 0
i) Alterations to the course at flow of flood 0 0 0 0
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water, 0 0 0 0
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: No changes to existing drainage patterns and surface runoff would result because grading
or new construction is proposed. No adverse effects to surface or ground water would
result.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 0
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 0
~
Phi] ip/eir/chulavistalchurchIS , 4/1 1/00
,)
c) Alter air movement, moisrure. or temperarure.
or cause any change in c1imate, either locally
or regionally?
PotentiaDy
J'ot.etltially SignirKaDt """ ....
SirniflCllnt """" Significant '"
Impact Mi~ated Im""ct lmpa~t
- 0 0 ~
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantia] increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
Comments:
No air quality effects would result because the increase in vehicular (five vans/small
busses) emissions would be minima] and no new construction is proposed. There are
no sensitive receptors in the surrounding area. The proposed outdoor platform and
storage area would not create any odors,
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ~
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ~
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 ~
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~
alternative transportation (e,g. bus turnouts.
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ~
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: A minimal amount of additional trips would be result from increasing the adult day care
capacity from 18 to 60 persons. A total of seven vans and sman buses are used to
transport the 60 day adult day-care enrollees. Increasing the program capacity from 18
to 60 persons would result in an incremental increase from two to seven vans or small
buses. One catering truck delivers the noon-time mea] for the enronees.
Approval of the outdoor covered platform would not change traffic patterns and volumes
on the adjacent streets, nor would it change the on-site traffic patterns or parking
requirements. No changes to ingress and egress are proposed, and no hazards or
barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created. No traffic related impacts would
result.
;;t.'f
Ph iJip! eirl chu lavista/ ch urchIS
4
4/11/00
PoI~tially
Pote.atiaU~' Signif)CaDt ee".....
SipificaDf u_ Signil"'JCaDt ~"
Impod Mititated Impod Impact
HI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 0
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 0
trees)?
0 0 0 0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 0
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 0
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 0
efforts?
Comments: The site is fully developed and is located in an urbanized area. There are no sensitive
plant or animal species on-site. No biological impacts would result from the proposed .
use of the site,
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed uses would be consistent with energy conservation plans and would not .
require any non-renewable resources.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ~
Philip/eir/chulavistalchurchIS
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4/11100
POlelltiaJlJ"
PoteotiaDJ- Signif"lc..ant l.ess lhan
Si~nificant UDl= Significant ~o
lmp'd M~ated lm""d lmp'd
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 0
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 0
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed use of the site would not involve operations involving hazardous
substances, nor wou1d it interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. No
known health or fire hazards would resuH from the use of the site.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0
Comments: No increase in noise levels would resuH ITom the approval of the outdoor platform that
is used to conduct religious services. The services are broadcast via FM radio and no
public address system is utilized in conducting the services. The services were observed
during site visits by City staff on two Sundays (3/5/00 and 3/12/00). Noise levels in the
parking lot were moderate and unintrusive. Noise from the service was barely audible
at the sidewalk in front of the church facility,
A letter report from Bruce Walker of Hersh Walker Acoustics states that the proposed
fence along the rear property line would provide 8-12 dB attenuation of noise. The
fence would reduce noise transmission across the property line for activities conducted
in the parking lot.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered govemmenJ services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 0
c) Schools? 0 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: No new public facilities would be required to serve the requested facilities. No alteration
of existing facilities would be required.
XII. Thresholds, Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards.
o
o
o
11!
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
11!
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
Ci-f;
PhiIip/eirichuJavistaJchurchIS 6 4/11100
Potentiall;r
Potentially ~cant Less than
SipllfM:aDt Uu&ess Significant /'io
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of
the cases, The Ciry of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met.
since the nearest fire station is two miles away and would be associated with a four-
minute response time. The proposed project would_comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments:
No new demand for fire or EMS service would be generated by the proposed facilities,
b) Police
o
o
o
o
The Thresho]d Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I cans
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments:
No new police service would be required for the proposed facilities.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that an intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "e" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach
LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard, The proposed project would comply
with this Threshold Standard.
Comments:
No additional traffic would be generated by the proposed facilities.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population. The
proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments:
No new park or recreation facilities would be required to serve the proposed facilities.
o
o
o
o
e) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project would comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Comments:
No new drainage facilities would be required to serve the facilities.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project would_comply with this Threshold Standard.
Philip/eir/chulavistalchurchIS
a7
7
4/] IIOO
Comments:
PoteatiaUJ'
PoteatiallJ SignUtCaIIt Less than
SIgnifICant U.Qless S~DiflCant
Impact Mitigated hnpact
(';0 new sewer service would be required to serve the requested facilities,
No
Impao
g) Water
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatJrient, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
Comments:
No new water service would be required to serve the facilities.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 0
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 0
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 0
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 0
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 0
Comments: No new utilities would be required to serve the facilities.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 0
public or wil1 the proposal result in the creation
of an aestheticany offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 0
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 0
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 0
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spil1light? 0 0 0 0
Comments: The proposed facilities are located wi~urbanized area and there are no scenic vista
Phi I ipl eirJch u Ja vistalchurchIS 8 4/] 1/00
POI.entian,.
Potentially Sj~C8.Dt lA-ss than
SipWa.nt Unless . Significant No
ImpaCI Mi~ated Impact hnpaCl
or viewpoints on, or adjacent 10. the property, No new construction is proposed that
would result in negative aesthetic effects or create additional light.
XV. CULTUR.\L RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 0
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 0
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 0
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 0
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 0
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The site is funy developed and no grading or disturbance of the existing landform is
proposed. No cu]tural resources would be affected.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Willthe
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: There are no known paleontological resources on-site or in the adjacent area. No
grading is proposed; therefor no potential impacts to paleontological resources are
anticipated.
o
o
o
o
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 0
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed facilities would not require any off-site recreational facilities.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
d-- '1
Philip/eir/chulavista/churchlS 9
o
o
o
o
4/11/00
Comments:
the quality of the em'ironment, 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 or
Califomia history or prehistory?
Pote.ati!au:y
S~nlltcant
Impact
PoteatiaU,.
Sq,.ifJCIDf
UDles!i
I\til.iJ:2ted
No
Impact
w. than
SignUlCaDt
lmpad
The site is fully developed with a church and is located in an urbanized area. No
sensitive plant or animal resources are present.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
enviromnental goals?
Comments:
o
o
o
t8I
The site is in a fully developed urbanized area and the proposed uses would not affect
the long-term enviromnental goals of the City.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerab]e"
means that the incremental effects of a 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.)
Comments:
o
o
o
[;OJ
The proposed facilities would not result in cumulative effects because the site, and
surrounding area, is fully developed. No other projects have been recently approved
in the area, nor are there any known future projects in the area.
d) Does the project have enviromnental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
o
o
o
t8I
No substantial adverse effects on human beings are anticipated from approving the
proposed facility for outdoor church services because the services are broadcast via FM
radio and no public address system is used. Noise levels would not exceed the
standards of the City's noise ordinance. Increasing the number of participants in the
adult day care program would not result in substantial adverse enviromnental effects on
the surrounding area.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be
implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
No mitigation measures are required because no significant adverse enviromnental effects wou1d result
from the proposed facilities and adult day care program. 7>'0
Philip/,i,/chulavisWchu,chIS ] 0 4/] 1100
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
Bv signing the liners) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read. understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
comained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with
the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance
without approval and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing o Biological Resources 0 U ti]ities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
o Paleontology 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
?>/
Phil ipJ eir/chulavistal churchIS
11
4/11100
_'.n._..._.._......_.
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the .
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA TION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and 0
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
] find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0
at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
~~'h/~~
SIgnature
.3 ~~/p~
Dare I
Marilvn.ij..F. Ponse!;vi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
3l...
Phi] i p/eirl chulavista! churchIS
12
4/11100
PLA,,1I\NING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage
and drive-in church service; and for increasing the number of participants
in the adult day care center from 18 to 60. Applicant: Chu]a Vista
Community Church
The proposed project is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in
church service in the parking lot of the Chu]a Vista Community Church, 271 East J Street; and
for increasing the number of participants in the adult day care center on the church premises /Tom
18 to 60.
City staff conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts associated with this project,
and the City's Environmenta] Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration (Attachment 3) has been prepared by City
staff and will be considered by the P1anning Commission prior to consideration of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 3) that has
been prepared for this project (IS-00-21); and adopt the attached Resolution PCC-00-31
(Attachment 2) approving the outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and approving the
increase of 18 to 60 participants for the adult day care center on the church premises.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Negative Declaration was considered and unanimously approved by the Resource
Conservation Commission on April 17, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The square, 2.2-acre parcel rises steeply above J Street, leveling off approximately 25 feet
from the street. A driveway on the southeastern corner of the lot leads to the church
building situated approximately twenty feet /Tom the eastern property line. Severa) parking
spaces are located in front of the church and along the northern end of the lot, but the
majority of the 81 spaces are directly west of the church building, where there are two
basketball hoops, one fairly close to the church and the other approximately 15 feet from
the northern property line. The outdoor stage, which has already been constructed, is in
-33
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
the northwestern corner of the parking lot, attached to an immobile truck approximately
eight feet from the north and west property lines.
A house that was converted into church offices and a preschool is in the southwest corner
of the property, which is at a grade much closer to the level of J Street than the rest of the
parcel. A separate driveway accesses that building.
A variety of lot line perimeter wans and fences surround the elevated portion of the property
where the church and parking lot are located. They include: a 6 ft. high steel fence, a 0-4 ft.
high masonry block wall with 4 ft. of wood on top, and a 4 ft. high chain link fence along the
eastern property line; a 4 ft. high CMU wan, a 4 ft. high chain link fence and a 6 ft. high
wood fence along the northern property line; and a 6 ft. high wood fence and a 3-8 ft. high
CMU wall along the westem property line.
The property is surrounded by single-family residential lots in an directions (see Locator.
Attachment 1).
2. Genera] Plan. Zoning. and Land Use
General Plan
Site: Residential
Low-Medium
North: Residential
Low-Medium
South: Residential
Low-Medium
East: Residential
Low-Medium
West: Residential
Low-Medium
3. Proposal
Zoning
Current Land Use
R 1- S- F Residential
Church, Adult Day Care Center. Preschool
RI - S-F Residential
S-F Residential
R 1 - S- F Residential
S-F Residential
RI - S-F Residential
S- F Residential
R 1 - S- F Residential
S- F Residential
OUTDOOR STAGE and DRIVE-IN CHURCH SERVICE
Since 1991, a 270-square foot wooden stage and immobile truck have been situated in the
parking lot of the Chu]a Vista Community Church, taking up approximately five parking
spaces and creating a deficit in the number of parking spaces required. As a condition of
approval, five striped parking spaces shan be added to the church parking lot.
3Y
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
Since the stage was established in the parking lot, a drive-in church service has heen
conducted onstage from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings. The service
provides a worship center for seniors and people with disabilities who find it difficult to
get out of their cars when they go to worship.
The 4' high e1evated stage measuring 6' by 22' is attached to the rear of the truck, which
contains a sound room. The truck is opened during the service to provide a stage backdrop
and access various items used for the service, such as a piano, microphones and a small
monitor.
An sounds from the stage are broadcast by radio to the radios inside the automobiles of the
people attending. There are no outside speakers on stage other than the small monitor so
the music team can hear the taped music. Loud speakers for amplification are not used or
proposed.
Approximately 40-55 cars of people attend the service each Sunday and are easily
accommodated in the parking lot. Typically, the one-hour service includes singing by a
small music team (choir), a sermon from the pastor, singing by people in their cars, and
collection of an offering. Honking of horns is not permitted.
The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the Chula Vista
Community Church (formerly caned Chula Vista Christian Reformed Church) in 1962. In
1963, the Planning Commission approved building plans for the church and an overall
master plan, which did not include the outdoor stage and drive-in church service.
Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is being sought to reflect the existing use and bring
it into comp1iance with Planning and Building regulations.
Planning staff received a complaint letter dated November 11, 1999 signed by several
neighbors of the church. A copy of that letter, along with the church's comments
regarding the ]etter, including an investigative report, are attached (Attachment 4). The
church also provided a history of complaints from Ann and Marvin Amick (Attachment 5),
the neighbors who reside directly behind the church parking lot.
Four other complaint letters from neighbors were sent to Planning staff in March 2000 in
response to the public notice for the Initia] Study that was conducted for this project. Those
letters are also attached (Attachment 6).
In response to the complaint letters received from neighbors, Planning staff conducted an
informal meeting with the applicant and their neighbors on May 10, 2000 to discuss
neighbors' concerns about the project. Marvin Amick, the neighbor directly behind the
church parking lot where the stage is located, said that the outdoor church service does not
generate a lot of noise because the pastor is soft-spoken. But he is concerned that future
5<)
"..__..~-
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
pastors may be louder. He said he does not like the appearance of the stage/truck, and that
it attracts homeless people and teenagers who drink beer, smoke pot and play music there
at night. He also said that lights from the stage and in the parking lot encourage kids to use
the basketball hoops and skate board at night, and the kids frequently become very loud
and disruptive. Mr. Amick requested that the applicant erect some sort of security gate
at the driveway entrance to prevent vehicles from driving through the parking lot when
church functions are not in progress.
The applicant is working with the Crime Prevention Unit of the City of Chu]a Vista Police
Department on a security plan for lighting and gating that will discourage trespassers,
without compromising emergency access. In addition, the applicant plans to remove the
basketban hoops from the parking lot and use a portable hoop that can be wheeled back
into the church after the youth group fInishes its weekly game on Mondays from 7 to 7:30
p.m.
To minimize visual impacts of the stage and miscellaneous noise generated on the church
property, the applicant plans to erect a six-foot high wood fence along the northern
property line. To insure that the fence will be effective as a sound barrier, the applicant's
architect consulted Hersh Walker Acoustics when designing it.
ADULT DAY CARE CENTER
Since 1984, an adult day care center administered by the non-profit Adult Protective
Services of San Diego County has been serving an average of 50 people per day, Monday
through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the Fenowship Room of the church.
The Day Care Center provides respite for caregivers of low-income seniors and people
with disabilities. Participants receive health monitoring and therapies, such as speech,
physical and occupational, as well as nutrition monitoring. In addition, they participate
in activities, such as Bingo, Trivia, and sewing, and in programs conducted by history,
communications and art teachers. According to the applicant, hospitalization and
convalescent home occupancy for seniors is postponed an average of five years through
this system of adult day care,
In 1984, the City's Zoning Administrator approved the request to locate and operate the
"adu]t day health care center for disabled elderly" at the church. The request did not
specify that the number of participants would be 50-60 per day, however. The Zoning
Administrator determined that the proposed operation was "simi]ar to the previously
approved family center," which was for a maximum of 18 people.
31-
"'--'--''''~- -,
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
The "previously approved family center" was a day center within a portion of the church
that included a treatment program for families involved in child abuse/neglect. A
conditional use permit issued in 1979 (PCC-80-3) included the following conditions:
] . The maximum number of children shan not exceed ] 2 children.
2. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
3. No additional signs.
In 1981, per the applicant's request, the Zoning Administrator authorized modifying PCC-
80-3 to increase the number of children from 12 to 18. When the Zoning Administrator
approved the request to locate and operate the "adu]t day health care center for disabled
e]derly" at the church in 1984 because it was "simi]ar to the previously approved family
center," he did not authorize the number of participants to exceed the established 18. The
applicant is now requesting that 60 people be allowed to participate in the adult day care
program already licensed by the state.
Three to four Red Cross mini-buses and three vans owned by Adu]t Protective Services
transport the seniors from their homes to the church and back each day. Drivers utilize
the west entrance of the church for loading and unloading passengers, which takes
approximately 15 minutes per vehicle. Approximate]y 30% of the day care participants
are in wheelchairs and need to use the hydraulic lifts on the buses. Therefore, the buses
remain running during loading and unloading.
At the neighborhood meeting held on May 10, Phillip Hoffer, the neighbor whose home
is directly across from the area where loading and unloading takes place, said that diesel
fumes from the buses are a nuisance and have affected the health of his child. He asked
if loading and unloading of passengers could be done in another part of the parking lot,
further away from the homes. The applicant indicated that steps at the front entrance of
the church make it too steep for the seniors, and there is no ramp for wheelchairs. Planning
staff recommends a condition of approval that a ramp be installed at the front entrance of
the church so that loading and unloading of passengers can take place there, instead of
closer to the neighbors' yards.
Ana]vsis
With the attached conditions of approval addressing neighborhood concerns, the proposal
is consistent with the City of Chu]a Vista Municipa] Code and the Genera] Plan.
~I
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/14/00
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Reso]ution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Negative Declaration
4. 11/11/99 Complaint Letter from Neighbors, and Church's Response
5. History of Complaints from Ann & Marvin Amick
6. Four Complaint Letters from Neighbors
7. Disclosure Statement
8, Site Plan
3~
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
June 14, 2000
;;lnd blf=19gr dUQQ ~gr:r.\I;];1Qr~iJ.I1:QRQS.
batch plant in Chula Vista where rock crushing and processing is taking place, an erefore
generating much more dust pollution. The Superior Ready-Mix batch acility would be
paved and watered-down every day.
Public Hearing closed 7:35.
- -2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative
Declaration a pprove Resolution PCM-00-23 amending the Otay Valley Road
Redev ent Project Area Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in
church service; and for increasing the number of participants in the
adult day care center from 18 to 60. Chula Vista Community Church.
Commissioner Thomas stated for the record that he spoke with the applicant and attended the
community meeting as an observer.
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner, reported that the Chula Vista Community
Church located at 271 East J Street is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for:
o an outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and
o to increase the number of participants, from 18 to 60, in the existing adult day care
center located on church premises.
The day care center is licensed by the State to have 60 participants, and they currently have 50 to
60 participants, however, a CUP from the City is required.
City staff conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts and the Environmental
Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts,
therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Commission's consideration and
adoption.
The project site is bordered by single family residential in all directions and consists of a church
building (sanctuary, fellowship room and classrooms); 81 parking spaces and some storage sheds;
2 basketball hoops, one of which is approximately 15 feet from the northern property line and
the other 50 feet from the property I ine; and the outdoor stage. At the southwest corner of the
property is a house that was converted into church offices and a preschool.
Since 1991, a 270 square foot wooden stage and a mobile truck have been situated in the
northwest corner of the church parking lot where drive-in church services have been conducted
on stage from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings. The drive-in church service provides
an alternative style of worship to individuals who would otherwise not attend church, i.e. senior
3'1
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
June 14, 2000
citizens and/or disabled individuals who find it difficult to ambulate. Approximately 40 to 55
cars attend the drive-in worship service.
The 4 foot high wooden stage measuring 6' X 22' is attached to the rear of the truck, which
contains the sound equipment. The truck is opened during the service to provide a stage back-
drop access to various items used for the service i.e. a piano, microphone and a small monitor.
All sounds from the stage are broadcast by radio into the radios inside the cars of the people
attending. There are no outside speakers on stage other than the small monitor so that the
worship team can hear the tape music. Loud speakers for ampl ification are not used or proposed.
Since 1984, an adult day care center administered by the non-profit Adult Protective Services of
San Diego County has been serving an average of 50 people per day, Monday through Friday
from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the Fellowship Room of the church.
There are 3 to 4 Red Cross mini buses and 3 vans owned by Adult Protective Services that
transport the participants to the center and back home each day. Drivers utilize the west
entrance of the church for loading and unloading passengers which takes approximately 15
minutes per vehicle.
In response to complaint letters received from neighbors, staff conducted a meeting with the
applicant and their neighbors on May 10, 2000 to discuss their concerns about the project.
Marvin Amick, the neighbor directly behind the church parking lot is concerned with, sound
emanating from the drive-in services; visual impacts of the stage from his property, and
basketball hoops that encourage kids playing at all hours when there is no other activity going on
in the church.
Phillip Hoffer, the neighbor whose home is directly across from the area where loading and
unloading takes place has complained that diesel fumes are a nuisance and have affected the
health of his child.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and
adopt resolution approving the outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and approve increasing
the number of participants from 18 to 60 in the adult day care center.
The resolution contains the following conditions of approval addressing the neighbor's concerns:
. that a 6 foot high fence be erected along the northern property I ine to act as both a sound and
visual barrier
. that the 2 permanent basketball hoops in the parking lot be removed and allowing the use of
portable hoops for church activities, and
. that an access ramp be installed at the south end of the building to enable loading and
unloading of participants.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill asked for clarification on whether the fence would need to be a masonry
sound wall.
'10
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
June 14, 2000
Ms. Vander Bie stated that Planning staff conducted two site visits on Sunday mornings and the
Environmental Planner who prepared the Initial Study and Neg Dec determined that an acoustical
analysis was not necessary because the amount of sound was so minimal. Therefore, it is staff's
opinion that by erecting a 6 foot tall wooden fence along the northern property line would
certainly minimize any noise that may be generated by the drive-in service.
Commissioner Thomas stated that as a former member of the Chula Vista Community Church,
he designed and built the stage.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City has received any complaints on these uses since the
inception of the day care and drive-in church in 1984 and 1991 respectively.
Ms. Vander Bie responded that the only complaints on record date back to a couple of years ago.
Public Hearing opened 8:05
Robb Hurt, 2562 Walking Stick Ct., Chula Vista, read into the record a letter from Pastor
Veenstra, who was unable to attend the meeting due to health problems. Pastor Veenstra's letter
addressed the following concerns with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution:
Condition #9 - relating to diesel emission nuisance
"A handicapped ramp shall be installed at the front entrance of the church, and loading and
unloading of Adult Day Care participants shall take place rather than atthe side entrance closerto
the adjacent landowner."
Response: As stated on the Negative Declaration prepared by the Environmental Review
Coordinator, no significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed project.
This requirement would inflict an undue hardship on the day care participants because the
majority are unstable in their gait and use ambulatory aides i.e. cane, walkers, or wheelchairs.
This would require the participants to walk 275 feet instead of 20 feet from the drop-off area to
the closest handicapped access door into the Adult Day Care Center.
Condition #5 - relating to noise nuisance
"Two existing basketball hoops in the church parking lot shall b removed. A portable basketball
hoop used for church activities shall be placed a minimum of fifty feet from the property lines."
Response: We request that only one basketball hoop that is closest to the north property line (20
feet) be removed, and that the other basketball hoop, which is 75 feet away from the property
line remain.
Condition #7
"A security plan that includes gating the church driveway when church facilities are not in use,
(/;
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
June 14, 2000
and reducing the number of parking lot lights at night shall be submitted to the Crime Prevention
Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department for review and approval, and subsequent
implementation."
Response: How does gating relate to the CUP and will this be a requirement of other churches
as well.
Marvin Amick, 630 Mission Ct., Chula Vista, resides directly behind the church parking lot stated
he opposes the approval of the permit and believes the drive-in church in this location is
inappropriate. Mr. Amick further stated that they have lived with the drive-in services since its
inception in 1991, and they can hear speaking and singing emanating from the services.
Although it has not been an egregious problem, it is a combination of uses that occur in the
parking lot i.e. basketball-playing during hours when there is no church activity, parking lot
lights, and visual blighting created by the stage and truck that has created, more than anything, a
nuisance to live with.
Ms. Amick read into the record a note from Mrs. Santos who lives across the street from the
church. "I feel that this should not be approved because of the noise. We, too, have complained
and the church has not been responsive. "
Mal Murphy, Executive Director of Adult Protective Serivces, Inc. stated the Center has been at
this location since 1984 providing excellent quality care for its participants and providing a much
needed service to this community. Mr. Murphy further stated he is available to answer questions
from the Commission.
Armenia Ishkamian, Program Manager at South Bay Adult Day Health Center, 301 E. J Street,
Chula Vista, restated Pastor Veenstra's concern with moving the loading and unloading site to the
south side of the faci I ities and urged the Commission to be mindful of the hardship this would be
to the participants, especially during inclement weather.
Ms. Ishkamian also stated that not all of the vehicles need to have their engines running in order
to operate the lift and they have been told to turn off their vehicles when they are loading and
unloading; a greater effort will be made to ensure that the drivers comply. One reason why
there is an apparent non-compliance with this request is because there is a high turn-over rate of
drivers; perhaps larger and more visible signs posted in the area where they load and unload
would help.
Public Hearing dosed 8:30.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he is supportive of the service the adult day care center
provides to the community and the concerns with diesel emissions can be easily mitigated by
keeping a tighter enforcement and ensuring the drivers turn off their engines.
Cmr. O'Neill further stated that he does not support a drive-in church in this location because the
surrounding area is too residential. Allowing drive-in churches in residential areas is probably
going beyond the scope of allowing churches in residential areas and in his opinion, the issues
surrounding the drive-in services with sound emanating from the service and the visual blighting
'+2-
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
June 14, 2000
created by the stage that is attached to an inoperable heavy truck is going beyond those
parameters.
Commissioner Cortes stated that the conditions of approval that staff if recommending are not
unreasonable and the concernsthat have been raised are not egregious and are mitigable with a
little effort, therefore he supports conditionally granting the CUP.
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there has been some discussion about
bifurcating the application and rendering a decision separately on the adult day care center and
the drive-in church. If that is the direction that the Commission may be considering, then it
would be her recommendation to continue this item to allow staff time to make the necessary
changes to the resolutions addressing and conditioning the two uses separately.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he too shares Commissioner O'Neill's concerns and is
supportive of the adult day care center. He would also feel more comfortable continuing this item
not only to afford staff the needed time to prepare the necessary documents to bifurcate the
application, but also to allow him time to visit the drive-in church when services are being
conducted, thereby allowing him the opportunity to make a more informed decision on this
application.
MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (5-0-2-0) that this item be continued to July 19th and direct staff to
bifurcate the permits and include information on potential additional traffic safety measures to
improve traffic flow to the entrance into the church parking lot. Motion carried.
,
Sunbow Development Phases 1B (Units 3,4, & 16), Phase 2A B,
Phase 1C (Units 5,6,13,14,15) to honor deceased Chul sta War
Veterans.
Background: Caroline Lewis, Development Services Technician, orted that at the City
Council meeting of May 9,2000 Councilmember Salas stated t In 1990 the City accepted a
proposal made by the Veterans Advisory Committee, and emitted themselves to recognizing
Chula Vista deceased war veterans by naming the stree er them in the Sunbow development, a
Master Planned Community that was then in the i . fal planning stages. Subsequently, Council
directed staff to investigate this issues leadin the City not following through with the proposal.
The street boundaries surround in e proposed area are to the north, the Sharp Chula Vista
Medical Center and the new erans Home; Olympic Parkway to the South; Telegraph Canyon
ical Center Drive to the West.
In June 1990 nbow Associated submitted a list to the City, selected from the Plaque at
Memorial rk and compi led by a committee of five veterans. All appropriate City departments
d and approved the list, including the Post Office, however, 8 names were excluded
s.
":3
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.~
--
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V-00-14: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
deny a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of
6'6" within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3 '6" is
permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R -] Zone,
with a General Plan designation of Residential.
The project applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance
request to maintain fencing that exceeds the anowable fence height for residential
properties. Section ]9.58.]50 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that fences located within
the required front yard setback not exceed a height of 3 '6". The subject fencing ranges in
height from approximately 5'6" to 6'6". This variance request was denied by the Zoning
Administrator based upon the finding that there are no special circumstances or hardships
applicable to the property that would justify granting a variance to exceed the allowable
fence height.
The project is exempt from environmental review as a minor change in land use (CEQA
Section] 5305).
RECOMMENDATION:
o That the Planning Commission deny the variance request.
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located at ] 46 "G" Street in the R-] Zone. The project site consists of
two parcels that total ] 1,700 in lot area. A single-family residence is situated on the
property. The subject property maintains a 90-foot street frontage along "G" Street.
Vehicular access is provided to the site via two separate driveways situated on "G"
Street. Surrounding uses consist of single-family residences.
According to the Zoning Code, "The purpose of the R-I Zone is to stabilize and protect
the residential characteristics of the areas so designated and to promote and encourage a
suitable environment for family life, The R-I Zone is basically intended to provide
communities primarily for single-family detached homes and the services appurtenant
thereto." The R-] Zone calls for a minimum lot size of7,000 square-feet.
/
!'age 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
ANALYSIS:
Project Description:
The applicant is proposing to maintain fencing/fence columns built within the required
front yard setback for the site (25 feet) that exceed the allowab]e fence height of 3 '6".
The subject fencing has been constructed along the northern (front) property line, as well
as portions of the eastern and western property lines.
Fence pilasters that range in height from 5' 8" to 6' 6" have been constructed along the
northem property line. A low block wan ranging in height from approximately 2' to 3'4"
has been constructed between the pilasters at the north of the property. Wrought iron
fencing would be placed between the pilasters on top of the low wan. The wrought iron
fencing would project above the fence columns.
Fencing constructed along the eastem and western property lines within the ITont yard
setback consists of wooden planks placed on top of an existing block wall. Fencing along
the eastern and western property lines has already been constructed and ranges from
approximately 5'8" to 6'6' in height.
Staff is concerned that this particular fencing creates a visual obstruction for vehicles
backing out of each of the two driveways on the property. Section ]2.]2.130 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code requires that fences not exceed 2'6" in height in areas that are
within five feet of the front property line and five of the driveway (see Attachment "D").
Section 12.12.130 also requires that fences along the front property line be at least 50
percent open and have posts that do not exceed eight inches in width. The wrought iron
portion of the fence along the northem property line would meet the 50 percent openness
requirement, however, the fence posts exceed 8 inches in width (approximate]y ]8 inches
in width) and are not in conformance with Section 12.12.130. Portions of the low wall
constructed on the northern property line exceed 2' 6" in height and are also not in
conformance with Section ]2.]2.130. It should be noted that the proposed fence is
situated in the public right-of-way and would be subject to an encroachment permit at any
height. If the applicant were to be granted a variance, an encroachment permit would
have to be obtained, and the fence would have to be modified to conform with the
aforementioned requirements of Section 12. ]2.130.
The only plans submitted for the project can be reviewed in Attachment "B." The plans
that were submitted for this variance request are substandard and only consist of a hand
drawn elevation. Staff will present pictures of the project site and surrounding properties
on Power Point at the Ju]y ] 9th hearing.
On April ] 4, 2000 the City of Chula Vista Zoning Administrator considered the fence
height variance request and denied it because the required findings for a variance, as
prescribed by Chula Vista Municipal Code Section ]9.]4.]90, could not be made. Listed
~
!'age 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
below are required findings for a variance along with the findings made by the Zoning
Administrator pertaining to this variance request.
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing
for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in
this context, personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective
profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance,
Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case
must be considered only on its individual merits.
Zonin~ Administrator Findin~: There are no hardships associated with this
property that would justify the granting of a variance for fence height. The
property is not substandard with regard to lot size, shape, street frontage,
topography, etc. The Zoning Ordinance anows the construction of a fence that is
3.5 feet in height at the front property line. The need for a variance has been
created by the property owner because the subject wan/fence was not constructed
in accordance with the height provisions of the Chu]a Vista Municipal Code. The
applicants also did not apply for nor receive the required building permit for the
fence.
2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
districts and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not
constitute a special privilege ofthe recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
Zonin~ Administrator Findin~: The variance is not needed to enjoy substantial
property rights enjoyed by others. An adequate security fence could be
constructed that is in conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
the adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this
chapter or public interest.
Zonin~ Administrator Findin~: The variance request would materially impair the
purposes of the public interest since it involves the construction of a fence that
creates a traffic safety hazard.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Genera] Plan
ofthe City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Zonin~ Administrator Findin~: The granting of this variance win not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Applicant's Appeal:
The property owners state in their letter of appeal that the fence is needed for security
reasons. The appenants also state that the fence is considered by surrounding neighbors
to be attractively designed and an asset to the neighborhood. The appeal letter further
3
Page 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 7/19/00
states that there are many fences in the Chula Vista Area that do not meet fence height
requirements, including the fence of their westerly neighbor (please refer to Attachment
"A").
It is important to note that the applicant submitted a variance request as a result of City
Code Enforcement action. The City received letters of objection to the proposed fence
during the administrative review and notification process that can be reviewed in
Attachment "A."
CONCLUSION:
As stated above, the Zoning Administrator previously denied this variance application.
The variance was denied because there are no special circumstances applicable to the
property that would justify the granting of a variance to exceed the anowab]e fence height
of 3'6". Staff has noted traffic safety issues associated with the proposed fencing, due to
the decreased visibility of the public right-of-way along "G" Street. Staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to
deny this variance request.
Attachment "A" - Locator Map
Attachment "8" - Letters regarding project
Attachment "C" - Reso]ution of denial
Attachment "D" - Municipal Code language
H:home/planning/stevexp/zavOO 14.rpt
<./
,t'
'-
" " '\
"'\\\ " /, I " /\ I ",,,
I I 1 ,.c'''' I \.",\'/" "I \,'" 'I', I .\,!:;C\" ,,-' I I 'I ,/""
\ 1~:{RE.I7:L\" \ \J\ <,;/ 'AI\. 1 \ \.R5\~';<:'\ I, \;:::;;;\ -i.,,\-~
,''\''' ,,"I ',\,\,. '\ '!,I i,' ,,\,/ I, , \, ' 1\ C'€.~\,,\'I \",' \"/"\f;.\ \",
-~ \- ..\ '-"\.... ~'\ \, \"". \" ':/ ,-,\,""" \ \:::S-...." \ ,~/ _'\ .'\\..'\ \ \ <, > \,/.l,. \, r \ ,.<;;~ \~~~.__._\
I.. \ ," ,,\ ~'I ' '\'",,,,,,\>,~ \
\ '\ 1/\,\/"",,' '\ I I I"",','" ,\ \, ," '''(.1':C::::,\'''::,,/, \ ~..\..
\ ..\..-'\. "';",:\ \\\,,~\.,\ \,'.','\, \ \, .\ \~R'Ollm: II r-.,.. "Ie'" ,'" \", \0 /
' '. ,I ,-: ~..." . \
.--\ .\.,.. " '~., ~ r
\ y~
\',~,..',','~".\~,\"" ", '\ ",. \\ (\\ '(..'::
\/\\-:\ "..- / "\ \
\' I \ 'I '\ \ \ ,. '",,' \ \ -\,< \1\\ "/-,,/ ,\ ("C\.-:,\ \
.."..,.-,- \ -- _-c \ \ \ r~ I -~ \ \ \ \ ~ l' _ '( '; \ \ /~ \ -}, .'
' ..":> 1 ,\ 1,./" ,", ,I I,' '..' \, .' ' ....0<'\:0 ," " ' ,,1", :', " I,.".'..,','.. ,', \..........\ '
,:', \ /1 \:::;,\ \ \ \ .\,..l,\~/\ \ V "~'I \ '0," 5,!""'" I I r\ \ \,) I_ _'\-- '
\,\\,\,,e,::, \~~Fi\~\ \\S~~\~ '::' V \~<I, '\ ",~,~)/I>:~~\':.I r~jT-O\/"'"
\ \'f>~ll\'!!\ 1'\'\, \ \,''>i''f/\ \ \ \ \.. ,/\ \ I \<\> "', 'I \/--1 1,_ ,,--:::::::::--<,
v:.V'J'-;' \ \\,\'\"\ \ \1\'\--'" ~ <, ~ \ \\--:. \(=~~ l:~:\ \C'~:
~,.~,~~\(;:\ ~'\~:\~.,,\\\S\\, \ \~;~,~~~ \ "1,.".. .\" \\\\~\~~~~<71\\c
'. \ \ \. .'---" C \ \ \ '-/.n \ \.. \ , c / \ "~"NuJ " 1 \-_ \" -< ) ,.._~'--_._~J--....
,JI" /",-\'\ \"\,~,\\ \ \ ~\~\'\ /' i /'v{ If If I. , )..>..' " \ ~"<:/ /"\'T'~\-'(
,--:" \,.\/\ \-1', \ \ \ J{~,:i"1\""J j-/ \ I~,! ! "," '/. \ ,( f " I I
\\,'~\\ \' 1;-\\\ \>i}iN~:?~, ,))/; \', "~.. ('\'\'"1\''' \" \\\A,~'\ '\ ~/'\""7'. ~/
" \, ,. .."''''V, \ ' v,~, ! ,\\\! \\:'"%\ '\ 'r"~, \ .. ',,"\, ,1'-</\
'\~;cJr\/.r,,~ \ \ \~:V'~:~.\, \'~r\\::<)/~,<' ,\:4" ,\ /\ ,\", ~\\ \- \ 'Y "Jr' \
' V, ,> ' ,/ \, \' '~~.!. "-, I '\ \ 1/," I ,'\ -=~ \ \ ~
'Y;\C\"q \ II :,/\(:W~'t~'!\\:l\~\,~~'\\:;~);\\'0
,;..... r' \ , .~" . , % \-' ~~ '\::::'\ \~:"~::~'>- ." 'i\ "(~;', 1-(\" \ \ \ j '\J\ \
' , ~.. ' Q,\ ,,/ I, .." \'''.\I/~\ , \ ,I ," 1\' \, \ "\,,,1,."\"",)'\ I, '\., ~""''''\''''i\..
' \, \ ,.., '...,/', ".. ,,\ \" ,,,..,, " , I
\ \\~\'//,\~'\"" \ \ ,..\0 \ j.,,\ le.1 1\ AY' ,.' '\',\\ \ ')\ I I -\_\ ,
y-.... -\~ \ '. \ \ '. )...~y\ \ -. ~.-- \ ,\,..- \.- ,..... -- \ \1 \ \ -y "'('~ \ \ l....)
\"" ",', ,;.' / ,I, I'" , ,\ ,,', "'...' , '..... ..,r, I ' I \ ,i---'
<" \' \, ',i- '/~.\/ \ \ \e ,.-' ,i---''':;, ';\ \ \ \.j,~ rf
~~:~~~\10SS'\\\~V' \ 0~\I~~~~ \)
j .' \ \-..1-,\,
\ -' '--~\
"" I"
\,--",\ \
"/\../~
FI'
LOCATOR PROJECT MARY JENNINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANl: ZONE VARIANCE
PROJECT 146 "G" Street S-
ADDRESS, Request: Proposed "Red Iron Decorative" fence with "Decor
Stone" columns.
SCALE, FILE NUMBER,
NORTH No Scale ZAV - 00-14
h :lhome\planning\hectorllocatorslzav0014.cdr 06/14/00
ATTACHMENT "A"
,
,
t::1
-r
p
t
-0
7'
V
5'\
;;..~
'--
o
-,
I
-i
()
l/\
I'
':!:.
r-
r'
- '
...l-
-:
r
~\
\". ,
\/,1
l~ 4 0:::3-
__I~_____C)_~ ~6-
~__ ______#&--- D,~o-:
~ r------~--- - --~- \~ >
~ _uu ------'\(--..,: ;;-
m'______u ~ \\.J
-----~---~=-'---'R'j\ '>
,--.,-------,-__~-~6 ;,
-D - ~ ((') :;..
~_-----~---~,~ I
~
\\--"-------1Jj:
,. ~_/::it:
.r;;...-
~'f'.' :y
~ i9-a>
\~ .( - .;. ~
. I
i \"
\(j ~-:~
~ ',,' '>- "'-l"
a "1
, , )>.
_~__o
-\:) 7
0'>
)
~B~
.~ ~~ Nt;
~ ~J~
~-~JJ~
,~
I
~
t=- ~
I
,
~-
-
~
I
'I
I
r
!
~
~
\ '-r-r
(,P
,
~
Iii
ATTACHMENT "B"
\ ':r\":
1~:~i..j
I am the mother of six children and the grandmother of eleven, six of
these grandchildren live at 146 "Goo St. in Chula Vista. As a grandmother I
want to provide protection for my grandchildren as best I can.
Last October or November my 7 year old and 2 year old grand
daughter's were playing in their front yard, a car with two men pulled up in
front a 146 "Goo St. The man that was sitting in the back seat opened the back
door of the car and was telling the 7 year old girl to come over to his car.
Her father was in the side yard out of the sight of the two men but
where he could see his children. He could see the fear on his 7 year old
daughter's face. When he came out of the side yard the car speeded away
from the house. 911 was called, the police came out. the officers said he
couldn't do anything since the men didn't touch the children it was a real
scary thing. It was at this time we decided to put up a secure fence and gates
to provide as much protection as we could for our family.
Three of my grandchildren who live at 146 "Goo St. have been
diagnosed with ADHD, they are very active children. The youngest child is 2
years old and a very active and busy little girl.
During the time my son-n-law was putting up the fence on weekends
and nights. We have had a lot of people to stop and ask for his business card
because they thought his work was so attractive. They wanted to engage him
to work for them.
Since this has come up, we have been looking at other peoples fence's
in the Chula Vista area and have found quiet a few fences that don't fall
within what they are supposed to be, in fact our next door neighbor to our
west isn't within what has been stated.
We have canvassed our nearest neighbors all that we talked to that we
found at home was glad to sign our petition all stated how they how they like
our fence and all the work my son-n-law had done in our property in such a
short time that we have lived here many stated how the fence was such a
good asset to our neighborhood and found it beautiful.
7
~!1lfIJ15'ff /j ~~ ~
;(q If-bl5 S'! ) ~ ~ 1)~
My daughter and I have talked about having a child care center here a
secure yard would be a must it we were to provide child care for other
people's children. We have found out that "G" S1. is a vel)' busy street traffic
WIse.
We are happy to be living here in Chula Vista. My grandchildren are
happy to be living in their new home and new schools. We are law abiding
people never having any dealing with city, county, state, or federal offices.
We are just hard working family that is trying to live the good life and doing
what we feel is best for our grandchildren.
When we first moved over to Chula Vista we bought expensive palm
trees to plant on the property to our surprise on finding 3 of the 4 plants have
been stolen out of our old fence that we haven't been able to lock up only in
the ground. This was our sad awaking to our new Chula Vista home.
Thank you,
Mary Gene Jennings
in behalf of my family
who live at 146 "G" S1. Chula Vista
?"
'-,
\..
"-
'--
W& \€.. \'''V\.O~ ~ 1'\ \..).1\7\ o\d ~E..c\("~ ~o:\ lJ..)O.'::>
('\() 00-1'0\: ' ~u..~~hYO..H\C ~e.. \ ~d-J-- \t wc\s \<:\Y-C:s~
. ~"'O.'(\. ?.L~ ~:\. ~ l.A.)€.,,€" \~\3~C\~\X\~ \~ wt'Y..,
, Q ~'h~\ 'I t..d.,..AVY\S j <G'l.G~\'{\J 6\9 \ n S
~€. to\u.VV\,s, ~'\-€.. ,-e.C\\\'~ ~\..\ ~V\\. w~ \-~ 'ozo.~\~
~<:'-Q\ s\cY\e...~ 0\\ CA\\ S\de~ C:;~ ~e. c..OhAY\.,\ S
Q.,-=,~ '\\0,,\ dE.C..o'fo-.\.\Ve.... ~€._'\'l~ c.....;;;..~,;)C~\-~S '\ S " \
\-,~-e.., \?ro c...ess o\- '0i\Y\~ Y\'\Cl~ 0.\ ~i S
-\\\V'\€-" ~ 0... \ \...w..~~ \=>u-\.r 0. e. O\..UV'\, ~n~ II'1.€-(\ '\ 0(\ ~':
\'(\€... \~G\Soy\' ~ ~OSE... ~ o...\oOJ€.- Wa,,::> *-0 sec.Ur:
VY\.'0 S\i 6-\C\.~ O~\\O'\-e...V\l~QC-\"e..\) ~e.. ~O\...lY\'::J&
\ S d. 'A's oB~- '\)u,'\\\<j \\ex b~\Vh ~'A ,6.a.~~'v\\€II
\)€...t':.o..YV\E?.. o.'\':::>o..'o\ed.j ~'\o'YY'\. ~<AU\'f\~ ~ 6S~\(..\...\.\~
,?'("-e..~o.~(,,~Sc\S~€..'\\Y\.~ 0.. ~oc.d c.-.\o\- H\ ~e. 'c)',o..\'(\
Lc\\...\.; \ \\G~ 0. S~() ~_
, ~'\'t..-e... c0; '\-~E:.. \"'j'\G'\QJ.,\O ~~o.("2X\o...'\~ Q.\c\<:~ X\c~E'd
. ~\\\-... ~ \j-\\- D \'\.-\uo.C>"\\1,\'~,,-e....~\...\.te.. ~(\t.€-
0'0.. c, \..."?-^~~ "0........:::.'-\ ~~~-\- \~ OI..J.\ ~ \.),.::o.~ 6 s;:.
'(~C~~ -\='0\ ~~,
, ~ \~ ""' \- ~ ~'("' ~~ 0\0 -\€-o('\(.€., w 0. So \'€.X\M"~
.\AJ'€.. \...\X.\€.. ,Ou.\~Q:( hz~d...) ~"'o..l,.\~ ~~ -\-\'YV''.e_
. C<J..." ~~\ \'Y\ ",~-e:.s ~-Q.\€- ~o..\.A,.\e..~ G..wo..~,
. ~ ~ o~ ~~ 60~S Cf\.~~ ',I...A.Y"\ <:.A'rAe...
, \ 'i'\. ~ Cv-.. '\ ~o. 'f d. -\~\ '^ ~ .:0 ().. ~c\.c..-\- \'f\. '-\
~"''\t.:~ \.....\Cc\.'<'\..c,t-S'\- C '\C\.~- c"".\\~'("L""',
:-"\ ..;
9
. . ------
,
~
Monday, Apn103,2000
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
Attention: Steve Power
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca, 91 91 0
Re: Case# ZAV 00-14
Dear Mr. Power:
Howappropiate, , , Saturday, April 1 , 2000, April Fools Day, \N6 received notification of a Request for a
Variance on the above referenced case number. A request means they are requesting approval,
however if you drive by the home at 146 "G" Street, you'll find that basically, except for the wrought iron,
and looks like possibly light fixtures on top of the columns, the work is done!! I am assuming they \N6re
already given and requested a permit to add an additional dnve-way that is done,
Also, for years our family has requested help with the watenng of the parkway, trees to be tnmmed, etc"
and have been told that the parkways are the city's property and that the trees are tnmmed, but cannot
be removed. If you drive by the home you will find that the trees that \N6re in the parkway for years,
have been removed and replaced with palm trees. We \N6re told that when asked why they removed the
trees that the reply was "Because \N6 didn't like them". Once again I am assuming permission was also
given to the owners to remove these trees.
Their 6 1/2 foot rock wall/fence would look beautifull in the country or mountains, but on "G" Street it
stands out. If this variance is approved then everyone on "G" Street, Chula Vista for that matter, should
be entitled to the same standards, and I feel if it is approved there should be a fine if permits and
approval \N6re not given on any of the undertakings they have done since moving into this home. We
have done several improvements on our property and have had to get permits each time. . . why does
this not apply to everyone??! I??
I would appreciate being notified of the outcome of this request for a variance.
Sincerely,
?~ {j~
Patricia A Zappone
121 "G" Street
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
RECEIVED
-
6 2000
PLANNING
/0
~E~alE
111 g atuEt
{!fw1a CViw, {!df 9'9'0-48'3
April 3, 2000
Mr. Steve Power, Project Planner
Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Ovic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Case Number ZAV-00-14
Applicant: Mary Jennings
146 "G" Street (APN 569-220-12)
Dear Mr. Power:
It is obvious that the applicant did not obtain a building permit, as required by law. If
she had, she would have been informed of the Iimil5 to fencing one's property.
I am a neighbor of the Jennings' property and feel this variance should be denied. The
rock-encrusted posl5 to support any wrought iron work are very unattractive.
If Mary Jennings wishes a fence along the front of her property, I suggest she
construct one similar to others along this section of "G" street, which did not require a
variance.
Sincerely,
. ~a- /!JcvtI-
~n:~~le
RECEIVED ..,
,
- 5 2iJJO
PLANNING
II
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A WALL
HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 146 "G" STREET, CHULA
VISTA.
WHEREAS, a duly verified appeal form was filed with the City ofChuJa Vista Planning Department
on April 2], 2000, by Mary Jennings; and
WHEREAS, said appeal form requests that a variance be granted to permit a fence ranging in height
from 5'8" to 6'6" where a maximum fence height of3'6" is allowed by the Chula Vista Municipa] Code;
and
Whereas, Section ]9.58.]50 ofthe Zoning Ordinance requires that fences located within the front
yard setback not exceed a height of 3.5 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is a Class 5
exemption from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, on April ]4,2000 the Zoning Administrator denied the wan height variance request
based on the findings as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said variance request and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least] 0 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for July] 9, 2000, 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an reports, evidence, and testimony presented at
the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ]T RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
Findings offact are as follows:
1. There are no hardships associated with this property that would justify the granting of a
variance for fence height. The property is not substandard with regard to lot size, shape, street
frontage, topography, etc. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a fence that is
3.5 feet in height at the front property line. The need for a variance has been created by the
property owner because the subject wa]l/fence was not constructed in accordance with the
height provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. The variance is not needed to enjoy substantial property rights enjoyed by others. An
adequate security fence could be constructed that is in conformance with the provisions ofthe
Zoning Ordinance.
12-
ATTACHMENT "c"
3. The variance request will not result in the substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will
not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any government agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 19th day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
RIHOMEIPLANNINGlSTEVEXP\zA vao 14.PCRES
I)
determined by the director of public works, the director of public works shall cause the obstruction to be
removed and a lien shall be imposed against the property in the manner provided in Sections 5610 through
5630 of the Streets and Highways Code of the state, and the lien shall be collected as a portion of the
regular tax assessment as provided in Section 5628 of the Streets and Highways Code. COrd. 1677 i1 (part),
1976; Ord.. 1205 i2 (part), 1969; prior code i27.209).
12.12.120 VISion clearance-Intersection requirements.
On each corner lot or two interior lots having a common side lot line, located within an interior angle
not exceeding one hundred thirty.five degrees, formed by two converging street lines and such lot or lots
. being subject to front yard requirements, no obstruction, including earth obstruction, to vision between a
height of three feet and ten feet above every point along the outer edge of the paved surface of the roadway,
or traveled portion of the roadway where no paving exists may be erected, placed, planted, allowed to grow,
or be maintained within that area of the lot or lots formed by the converging street lines and a straight line
intenecting such street lines, drawn at right angles to a line running midway or nearly midway between and
in the mean direction of the converging street lines at a point three feet outside the buildable area of the
lot or lots, provided that said line shall not be less than forty. five feet in length, except the following:
A. Single trees and shrubs pruned, arranged, and maintained in such a way as to prevent blind spots and
provide reasonable unobstructed vision, throughout the area, for drivers of automobiles;
B. Wire fences of chain link or similar open mesh constrUction;
C. Pole signs, as otherwise permitted, provided the pole minimum support only is the only part of the
strUcture visible within the height limits.
COrd. 973 U (part), 1966; prior code U 9.15.1).
12.12.130 VISion clearance-Driveway requirements.
Within five feet of any driveway, no fence, wall or hedge or other dense vegetation shall be permitted
within five feet of the front line of any lot which is subject to front yard requirements if said fence, wall,
hedge or vegetation is more than two feet six inches in height, unless same is arranged so as to provide fifty
percent or more of distributed open space so as to prevent dense blind areas exceeding eight inches in width
along its horizontal easurement. COrd. 973 i1 (part), 1966; prior code i19.15.2).
Hov.'5e
19,5~.150_
~
v",.; ~_
Drill\?"w,
. ~
Ft:'
30"J./j h
dear Ar-e.~ pV. /'2./;1..130
-- Fe
Sid~lVo..l
tf:krb
i:
Any _St re.e.t
IV
<E-
-=dJ1.6/92'
ATTACHMENT "D"
73~