HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1997/04/09
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ChuIa Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of February 12, February 19 and February 26, 1997
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.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GPA-97-02/PCZ-97-02 and PCM-97-18; Request to: 1)
amending the General Plan from "Professional and
Administrative Commercial" to "Retail Commercial", 2)
rezoning from C-C (Central Commercial) for .93 acres of
land located at the southeast quadrant of "H" Street and 1-
5, and 3) adoption of the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan" -
Baron Land LLC/City of Chula Vista
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA-97-03; Consideration of amendment to Sections
19.64.150 and 19.64.155 of the Municipal Code to allow
for reconstruction of nonconforming residential units - City
Initiated
3. Update on Council Items
(-more-)
Agenda
-2-
April 9, 1997
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT at
p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of April 16, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in
Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of
April 23, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
(ag4-9.pc)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date 4/9/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: GPA 97-Q2/PCZ 97-02 and PCM 97-18 - Request to: 1)
amend the General Plan from "Professional and Administrative
Commercial" to "Retail Commercial;" 2) rezoning from C-V-P (Visitor
Commercial subject to precise plan) to C-C (Central Commercial) for .93
acres of land located at the southeast quadrant of H Street and 1-5 and 3)
adoption of the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan", - Baron Land LLC/City
of Chula Vista.
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is to: 1) amend the General Plan from "Professional and Administrative
Commercial" to "Retail Commercial;" 2) rezoning from "C-V-P" (Visitor Commercial subject
to Precise Plan) to "C_C" (Central Commercial) for .93 acres of land located at the southeast
quadrant of H Street and 1-5; and, 3) adoption of the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan." The
applicant, Baron Land LLC, owner of the westerly .43 acres of land presently containing the
Gateway Plaza shopping center has expressed concerns with their ability to lease space to tenants
under the current zoning which they consider to be restrictive. To maintain land use continuity,
the City of Chula Vista has expanded the project area by an additional .s acres to include the
property immediately adjacent to the east (please see Attachment 1).
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS 97-16, of potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached
Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no
significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration issued on IS 97-16.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Review and consider IS 97-16 and recommend the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration.
2, Adopt the attached Recommending Resolution by which you recommend that the City
Council:
a. Adopt the attached Draft Council resolution amending the land use designation
of the General Plan from "Administrative and Professional Commercial" to
"Retail Commercial' in accordance with Exhibit A attached thereto;
Page 2, Item -L
Meeting Date 4/9/97
b, Based on the Findings in Section IT of the attached Draft City Council Ordinance,
enact the Draft City Council ordinance to change the zone from C-V-P to C-C in
accordance with Exhibit B attached thereto; and,
c. Based on the Findings in the attached Draft City Council resolution attached
thereto, adopt the Draft City Council resolution adopting the "Gateway Plaza
Specific Plan" in accordance with Attachment 2.
MAJOR ISSUES:
1. The current zoning provides limited land use options to the existing commercial building
located at 730 H Street.
2, The existing zoning designation of C-V-P is inconsistent with the existing General Plan
designation of the property ("Professional and Administrative Commercial").
3. Adjacent residents of the Bison Mobile Home Park have expressed concerns over types
of land uses which would be allowed with the proposed zone change,
4. In response to residents' concerns, a Specific Plan is proposed in order to limit certain
land uses allowed under the proposed C-C zoning designation,
5, The proposed Specific Plan reflects the General Plan policies affecting this property as
a "gateway". area of the City and maintains the precise plan guidelines which were
established under the existing C-V-P zone.
DISCUSSION:
$ite Characteristics
The project site consists of two rectangular shaped parcels totaling .93 acres of land bounded
by the San Diego Trolley lines to the west, apartments to the east, an existing mobile home park
to the south and H Street Trolley Station and parking to north across H Street.
The two properties encompassing the project are each fully developed at this time. The western-
most site contains an existing 4,760 square foot commercial building along with 24 parking
spaces. The other site contains an AM!PM gas station/mini-mart. There are no plans for any
redevelopment of either site at this time.
Page 3, Item --L-
Meeting Date 4/9/97
General Plan Amendment
The proposal consists of an amendment to the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan from
"Professional & Administrative Commercial" to "Retail Commercial" for the project area.
Rezonini
The proposal involves a change of zone from "Coy_po (Visitor Commercial subject to Precise
Plan) to "C_C" (Central Commercial) for the project area. Adjacent zoning consists of "R-3"
(Multiple Family Residential) to the east, "MHP" (Mobile Home Park) to the south, "C_V"
(Visitor Commercial) to the west and "C-V-P" to the north (S.D. Trolley Station site), The
current "C-V-P" zoning is designed to permit land uses which are oriented primarily to visitors
and the travelling public (e,g., hotels, motels, restaurants, etc,); however, the zone does not
accommodate a full range of retail commercial land uses, The existing zoning on the property
also carries with it specific Precise Plan guidelines that apply to development of this property
as a result of its location within a "gateway" to the City, as defined in the City's General Plan"
(please see analysis below). These existing guidelines include the following:
1, Landscaping shall reflect the location of these properties as one of the designated
gateways to the City.
2. Future signing shall be oriented to H Street and be in keeping with the policies of the
Scenic Highways Element.
The proposed Specific Plan, described below, will assure that these important guidelines will still
apply to the property after adoption of this zone change.
Specific Plan
The proposed "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan" has been prepared for consideration and is attached
.(please see Attachment 2). The primary goals of the draft Specific Plan are to:
1. ensure the continued application of guidelines to the property aimed at enhancing the
City's "gateway,"
2. recommend land uses which are considered most appropriate for the project site under .
the proposed C-C zone, and
3. preserve the quality of life for those residents located within the adjacent mobile home
park and apartments through the prohibition of land uses that are considered to be
objectionable on the project site.
Page 4, Item ..L
Meeting Date 4/9/97
Public Input
Responses received from residents of the Bison Mobile Home Park have identified concerns with
the potential for inapprOpriate land uses being permitted by the C-C zone which are not presently
permitted under the existing zoning, In response to public noticing, numerous residents of the
adjacent mobile home park have expressed concerns over the proposed zone change,
Specifically they are concerned about the possibility of bars, nightclubs, card rooms and other
uses locating within the project which would lead to excessive nighttime noise and loitering,
ANALYSIS:
General Plan!Zonin~ Consistency
The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is "Professional and
Administrative Commercial," The present zoning designation of C- V -P is inconsistent with the
existing General Plan designation on the property. In addition, the property is located on H
Street in an area described in Chapter 10 (Central Chula Vista Area Plan) of the General Plan
as a "gateway" to the City. The proposed General Plan Amendment is to change the land use
designation to "Retail Commercial," consistent with the C-C (Central Commercial) zoning
designation proposed for the property, This will result in consistency between the General Plan
and the zoning designation for the property,
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning will result in the allowance of a greater range of
land uses than are presently permitted on the project site. These land uses will provide support
for pedestrian-focused activities associated with the H Street Trolley Station located immediately
north of the project site across H Street. This is consistent with the mix of retail, office and
high density residential envisioned for the area surrounding the transit station as identified in the
City's General Plan as well as the Land Use Distribution Element policies developed as part of
the SANDAG Regional Growth Management Strategies.
Land Use Compatibility Issues/Specific Plan Proposal
The most appropriate zoning classification to implement the proposed General Plan "Retail
Commercial" designation and to enable the applicant to attract acceptable retail tenants is the C-
C (Central Commercial) zone. While this zone is primarily structured to allow these use types,
there are certain land uses permitted in the C-C zone which are not suited for this site,
Based upon concerns expressed by numerous residents of the Bison Mobile Home Park located
directly adjacent to the south and alSo considering that the property is located within a "gateway"
to the City, staff is recommending adoption the draft "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan," designed
to further control permissible land uses on the project site so as to preserve the quality of life
for those residents within the adjacent mobile home park and apartments, as well as provide an
Page S, Item ....1.....
Meeting Date 4/9/97
increased range of land uses at one of the City's "gateways," Consistent with Section 65450 of
the State Planning and Zoning Law, this Specific Plan will be used as an implementation tool
to ensure that the goals and policies of the General Plan are being upheld for this area. This
Specific Plan would prohibit certain land uses which are determined to be inappropriate for the
above discussed reasons (please see Attachment 2).
Conclusion
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution and ordinances for the project site in
accordance with the analysis above,
Attachments
1. Locator
2, Draft Specific Plan
3. Planning Commission Resolution (including Draft City Council Resolution & Ordinance)
4, Negative Declaration for Initial Study 97-16
5. Site Plan
6. Ownership Disclosure
(A:\pcrpt".......)
,
TROLLEY
STATION
o
~
.-
~
-z.
~
r<'
,,; ""i~';'
- . .. ",) :'~Y{;.,i' I t~ ::!
, );~UI~trcli"
,~, ~~ ~ ~,,,,,,~,Ja;
11 t~.~ ....; j~:i;~
~.~ l PROJECT
LOCATION
MOBILE HOME
PARK
PROJECT SITE INFORMATION
~
%
<:.
'"
Assessor's Parcel Numbers
571-030-09 & 571-030-12
ATTACHMENT 1
.\'\' ~~
~
'"
-r..
...
oJ'
oJ'
Zoning:
Existing:C-V-P (Visitor Commercial subject to Precise Plan)
Proposed:C-C (Central Commercial subject to Specific Plan)
General Plan:
Existing:Prolessional and Administrative Commercial
Proposed:Retail Commercial
.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR
C)
PROJECT DESCRlI'IlON,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT Gateway Plaza
APPlICANT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
720 & 730 H Street
\
%;
o
<6
\.
z
!"
~
SCALE: I FILE NUMBEIO
NORTH No Scale GPA-97-02
h:\home\plannlng\carlos\locators\gpa9702a.cdr 3/31/97
Request: Proposal lor Generol Pion Amendment from Professional &
Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial, Rezone from C-V
(Visi1or Commerciol) to C-C (Retail Centrol Commercial) & Specific Plan.
Related Cases: IS-97-16, PCZ-97-02 & PCM-97-18
~
A'ITACHMENT 2
GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Backuound
The Gatweay Plaza Specific Plan encompasses two parcels totaling ,93 acres located near
the southeast quadrant of "R" Street and Interstate 5 freeway as shown on the attached
Specific Plan map marked Exhibit 1, The Specific Plan area is designated as a
"gateway" in the Chula Vista General Plan, The two parcels were zoned C- V -P (Visitor
Commercial subject to a precise plan) until the rezoning to C-C (Central Commercial)
concurrently with the adoption of this specific plan.
B. Purpose of the Specific Plan
The purpose of the specific plan is to allow the properties to be utilized for retail
commercial and other commercial uses on a more restricted scale than would otherwise
be permitted under the CC zone, These restrictions are in recognition of the various
constraints affecting the site (including existing surrounding land uses) and in keeping
with its prominent location as a "gateway" to the City of Chula Vista,
The adoption of this specific plan was preceded by an amendment to the Land Use
Diagram of the General Plan designating the site "Retail Commercial" and rezoning both
parcels to C-C (Central Commercial). While the General Plan redesignation of the site
and rezoning would probably constitute sound urban planning practice, the relatively
small size of the site, its proximity to residential development, and its location as a
"gateway" to the City suggest that a specific plan for the site is appropriate. The specific
plan process is designed to promote higher levels of land use innovation and design
flexibility than the City's conventional zoning regulations by tailoring the proposed land
uses to the site and establishing height and bulk standards sensitive to its location, size
and configuration.
C. Government Code Authority
The specific plan implementation of a general plan is authorized under Title 7 of the
California Government Code, Chapter 3, Article 8 and Chapter 19.07 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code,
II. SPECIFIC PLAN
A. Goals and Objectives
1. Goals: The implementation of the Chula vista General Plan and its several
elements, and the promotion of land uses which are compatible with the existing
and proposed surrounding areas adjacent to the site,
2. Objectives: The following embodies the general objectives of the Gateway
Specific Plan:
a. To ensure the continued application of guidelines to the property aimed at
enhancing the City's "gateway."
b, Recommend land uses which are considered most appropriate for the
project site under the proposed C-C zone, and
c. Preserve the quality of life for those residents located within the adjacent
mobile home park and apartments through the prohibition of land uses that
are considered objectionable on the project site,
d. To allow existing uses on the site to continue including possible
renovations and upgrades subject to all other provisions and requirements
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
B. General Description of the Specific Plan
The Gateway Specific Plan, prepared in accordance with Section 65450 et, seq, of the
State Planning and Zoning Law and Chapter 19,07 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
proposes to guide the land uses allowed on the properties at the southeast quadrant of the
intersection H Street and Interstate 5.
C. Relationship to the Municipal Code
Other than items specifically listed in this specific plan, all other development standards
and procedures shall comply with the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title
19, most specifically Chapter 19.38 (attached for reference) and other applicable City
standards and regulations.
D. Land Uses
1. Recommended Uses
A. Permitted Uses
1. GeneralRetail
2. Specialty Shops
3. Restaurants (Seating restricted based upon parking provided
on-site and available to the restaurant)
B. Conditional Uses
1. Service Station
2. Mini-mart (in conjunction with service station)
3. Permitted uses under the C-C zoning designation which include
the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site use or consumption
2. Prohibited Uses
A. Beer bars
B. Card rooms
C. Athletic clubs Oarge)
D. Bars (drinking places)
E. Body conditioning clinic
F. Cocktail lounge (primary use)
G. Dancing-nightclubs
H. Dance halls
I. Liquor stores
J. Video Arcades
K. Amusement Centers
L. Medical clinics (allowing walk-in patients)
M. Treatment Centers
N. Pool Rooms/Billiard Parlors
E. Specific Development Guidelines
1. Landscaping shall reflect the location of these properties as one of the
designated gateways to the City.
2. Future signing shall be oriented to H Street and be in keeping with the
policies of the Scenic Highways Element.
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. GPA 97-02lPCZ 97-02lPCM 97-18
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN,
ADOPT A SPECIFIC PLAN, AND REZONE ,93 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF INTERSTATE 5 AND H STREET FROM
C-V-P TO CoCo
WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a General Plan amendment, and rezoning of .43 acres was
filed with the Planning department of the City of Chula Vista on January 16, 1997 by Baron Land LLC; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has expanded the project area by an additional .5 acres to
include the property directly adjacent to the east and include consideration for a Specific Plan to further
restrict allowable uses under the proposed C-C (Central Commercial) zoning, and
WHEREAS, said applications request that the. 93 acre project site located at the southeast quadrant
of Interstate 5 and H Street be designated Retail Commercial on the General Plan, rezoned from C-V-P
(Visitor Commercial with Precise Plan) to C-C (Central Commercial) and, further, that the rezoning be
accompanied by the adoption of a specific plan known as the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan," and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said rezone application
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 an area greater than 500 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 9, 1997 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, the General Plan has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year;and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commission has reviewed and considered IS
97-16 and recommends the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration.
Be IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the
Commission recommends that the City Council enact an ordinance and resolution as attached hereto to amend
the General Plan, adopt a specific plan and rezone for .93 acres located at tlle southeast quadrant of Interstate
5 and H Street, based on the findings contained therein and in accordance with the exhibits attached thereto.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALiFORNIA,
this 9th day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
m: \home\plann.ing\jeff\reso\gat
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN AND . ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS
GA1EWAY PLAZA GOVERNING THE LAND USES OF .93 ACRES AT THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF H STREET AND 1-5
WHEREAS, Baron Land LLC, filed an application for a General Plan Amendment with the Planning
Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 16, 1997, and
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment application requested that .43 acres located at the
southeast quadrant ofH Street and 1-5 be redesignated from "Professional and Administrative Commercial"
to "Retail Commercial", and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has expanded the project area by an additional .5 acres to
include the property directly adjacent to the east and include consideration for a Specific Plan to further
restrict allowable uses under the proposed C-C (Central Commercial) zoning, and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan will cover the area as shown on Exhibit
"A" (the Property) attached hereto, and
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application requested that a Specific Plan known as "Gateway Plaza
Specific Plan" attached hereto marked Exhibit "B", be adopted governing the allowable land uses of the
Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 9, 1997 and voted _to_
recommend that the city Council approve the General Plan Amendment and adopt the "Gateway Plaza
Specific Plan" for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said rezone application 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 an area greater than 500 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing in accordance with
Government Code Sections 65358, 65090 and 65091(a)(1) and (2) and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
19.06.010, 19.07.010 and 19.12.070; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study (Case No. IS 97-16), was prepared for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends the adoption of a Negative
Declaration for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan has not been amended more than three (3) times this calendar year;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City Council, the
Council fmds that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative
Declaration issued on IS 92-35.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan designating the Property as "Retail Commercial".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City Council, the Council
determines that the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan" attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" is consistent with the
General Plan of Chula Vista as currently amended by this resolution as document # _.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt
the "Gateway Plaza Specific Plan".
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
, ,
\
0
~
r-
TROLLEY ~
STATION . -z.
"Z ~~
"" .""
z
0
<6
\
%
.,.. \"
."
PROJECT
LOCATION
MOBILE HOME
PARK
?:.
~
'"
~
'"
oJ>
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR PROJECT Gateway Plaza
C) APPLICANT:
PROJECT 720 & 730 H Street
ADDRESS:
~
'"
-r.
...
oJ>
~
PROJECT DESCRlmON:
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Request: Proposal for General Plan Amendment from Professional &
Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial, Rezone from C~V
(Visilor Commercial) to C-C (Retail Centrol CommerciaO & Specific Plan.
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale GPA-97.D2
~
h:\home\plannlng\carlos\locators\gpa9702a.cdr 3/31/97
Related Cases: IS.97.16, PCZ.97-02 & PCM.97-18
~
EXHIBIT B
GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Backeround
The Gatweay Plaza Specific Plan encompasses two parcels totaIing .93 acres located near
the southeast quadrant of "H" Street and Interstate 5 freeway as shown on the attached
Specific Plan map marked Exhibit 1. The Specific Plan area is designated as a
"gateway" in the Chula Vista General Plan. The two parcels were zoned C-V-P (Visitor
Commercial subject to a precise plan) until the rezoning to C-C (Central Commercial)
concurrently with the adoption of this specific plan.
B. Pumose of the Specific Plan
The purpose of the specific plan is to allow the properties to be utilized for retail
commercial and other commercial uses on a more restricted scale than would otherwise
be permitted under the CC zone. These restrictions are in recognition of the various
constraints affecting the site (including existing surrounding land uses) and in keeping
with its prominent location as a "gateway" to the City of Chula Vista.
The adoption of this specific plan was preceded by an amendment to the Land Use
Diagram of the General Plan designating the site "Retail Commercial" and rezoning both
parcels to C-C (Central Commercial), While the General Plan redesignation of the site
and rezoning would probably constitute sound urban planning practice, the relatively
small size of the site, its proximity to residential development, and its location as a
"gateway" to the City suggest that a specific plan for the site is appropriate. The specific
plan process is designed to promote higher levels of land use innovation and design
flexibility than the City's conventional zoning regulations by tailoring the proposed land
uses to the site and establishing height and bulk standards sensitive to its location, size
and configuration,
C. Government Code Authoritv
The specific plan implementation of a general plan is authorized under Title 7 of the
California Government Code, Chapter 3, Article 8 and Chapter 19.07 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
ll. SPECIFIC PLAN
A. Goals and Objectives
1. Goals: The implementation of the Chula vista General Plan and its several
elements, and the promotion of land uses which are compatible with the existing
and proposed surrounding areas adjacent to the site,
2. Objectives: The following embodies the general objectives of the Gateway
Specific Plan:
a. To ensure the continued application of guidelines to the property aimed at
enhancing the City's "gateway."
b, Recommend land uses which are considered most appropriate for the
project site under the proposed C-C zone, and
c, Preserve the quality of life for those residents located within the adjacent
mobile home park and apartments through the prohibition of land uses that
are considered objectionable on the project site.
d, To allow existing uses on the site to continue including possible
renovations and upgrades subject to all other provisions and requirements
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
B. General Description of the Specific Plan
The Gateway Specific Plan, prepared in accordance with Section 65450 et, seq, of the
State Planning and Zoning Law and Chapter 19,07 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
proposes to guide the land uses allowed on the properties at the southeast quadrant of the
intersection H Street and Interstate 5.
C. Relationship to the Municipal Code
Other than items specifically listed in this specific plan, all other development standards
and procedures shall comply with the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title
19, most specifically Chapter 19.38 (attached for reference) and other applicable City
standards and regulations,
D. Land Uses
1. Recommended Uses
A. Pennitted Uses
1. General Retail
2. Specialty Shops
3. Restaurants (Seating restricted based upon parking provided
on-site and available to the restaurant)
B. Conditional Uses
1. Service Station
2. Mini-mart (in conjunction with service station)
3. Pennitted uses under the C-C zoning designation which include
the sale oC alcoholic beverages Cor off-site use or consumption
2. Prohibited Uses
A. Beer bars
B. Card rooms
c. Athletic clubs (Jarge)
D. Bars (drinking places)
E. Body conditioning clinic
F. Cocktail lounge (primary use)
G. Dancing-nightclubs
H. Dance halls
I. Liquor stores
J. Video Arcades
K. Amusement Centers
L. Medical clinics (allowing walk-in patients)
M. Treatment Centers
N. Pool Rooms/Billiard Parlors
E. Specific Development Guidelines
1. Landscaping shall reflect the location of these properties as one oC the
designated gateways to the City.
2. Future signing shall be oriented toH Street and be in keeping with the
policies oC the Scenic Highways Element.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY
SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
REZONING .93 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF 1-5 AND H STREET TO C-C
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezoning of a .43 acre site was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 16, 1997 by Barron Land LLD"
and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has expanded the project area by an additional .5
acres to include the property directly adjacent to the east resulting in a .93 acre project site
requesting approval of a rezone from C-C-P (visitor Commercial) to C-C (Central Commercial),
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Apri19, 1997 and voted
_to_to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to rezone said Property to C-C
(Central Commercial); and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for hearing on said rezoning
application 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 within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m"
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing
was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be
no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS 97-16.
WHEREAS, section 19.18.010 of the Municipal Code authorizes changes to the City of
Chula Vista Zoning Map; and
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: Environmental
The City Council finds that the project would have no significant environmental impacts
and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS 97-16,
SECTION II: Findings
The City Council fmds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan as amended concurrently and Specific Plan known as the "Gateway Plaza Specific
Plan" as added concurrently with this action and that the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C.
.
SECTION ill: Rezoning
The City of Chula Vista Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone the Property to C-C
"Central Commercial" as shown on the Exhibit attached hereto,
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
p.,\homelPIamW!c\jcff\cc..."I=...Q
FXHTRTT A
1.
;
!:I
'"
TROLLEY
STATION .
\
-,<~0
'y\' ';)\'""
.
~
o
<?,
\
~
("
'"
-:'-:'0.-:"-
'"
h:\home\planning\carlos\carloslzonlng\pcz9702 3/28/97
CASE NUMBER:
SCALE:
No Scale
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
PCZ-97-02
ACREAGE:
.93
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
March 28, 1997
C. J. FmzaMeZ
CITY ClERK
DATE
CHECKED BY:
C)
ZONING MAP - 483
~!~
-r-
---
emOf
OiUIA VISrA
NORTH
ATTACHMENT 4
negative
declaration
""'\
""
PROJECT NAME:
Gateway Plaza
PROJECT LOCATION:
730 "H" Street and 720 "H" Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-030-12,571-030-09
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Baron Land LCC
CASE NO:
IS-97-16
DATE:
March 12, 1997
A. Project Setting
This project site lies at the intersection of"H" Street and the MTDB trolley tracks. It consists of
two adjoining parcels, one at 730 "H" Street (APN # 571-030-12) which is owned by Baron
Land LCC, and one at 720 "H" Street (APN # 571-030-09) which is owned by Atlantic
Richfield. The Baron Land parcel is 18,048 s.f. (AI acres) and the Atlantic Richfield parcel is
22,358 s.f. (.51 acres). Together the parcels equal 40,406 sJ. (.92 acres).
A 4,800 s.f. retail structure now occupies the parcel at 730 "H" Street, while an AM PM mini
mart and service station are currently located at 720 "H" Street. The Baron Land parcel provides
24 parking spaces and the AM PM parcel provides 8 parking spaces (32 total). Surrounding land
uses include: Visitor Commercial to the north, multi-family residential to the east, the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) right-of-way to the west, and Bison Mobile
Home Park to the south.
B. Project Description
Existing General Plan designation is Professional and Administrative. Existing zoning is Visitor
Commercial. At this time, the Gener~l Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations on this site are
not compatible. A Specific Plan is being proposed to limit uses within the CCP zone.
C. Compatibilitv with Zonin!! and Plans
The current zoning on-site is CV (Visitor Commercial) and the site is designated Professional
and Administrative on the City's General Plan. The existing zoning is not in compliance with
the General Plan.
The applicant proposes two discretionary actions, a General Plan Amendment from Professional
and Administrative Commercial to Retail Commercial, and a Rezone from C- V (Visitor
Commercial) to C-C (Retail Central Commercial). These actions will facilitate compatibility
between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
(H:\homc\planning\keith\nd.gatcway)
~I~
-.-
F.....,.;:'"............... _
- - ......
\..
\..
city of chula vista planning department 01Y OF
environmental review ..cllon. mUlA VI~A
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist Fonn) detennined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental
effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 ofthe State CEQA
Guidel ines.
D. Consultation
I. Individuals and Or!lanizations
City of Chula Vista:
Keith Barr, Planning
Doug Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Gary Williams, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Attorneys Department
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista City School District
Tom Silva, Sweetwater Union High School District
Applicant's Agent:
Baron Land LLC
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
PCC-82-7 Atlantic Richfield Co.
3. Initial Studv
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative Declaration. The reportreflects the independent judgement of the City
ofChula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project
is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910.
i2~~RDfNATOR
Douglas D. Reid
(H:\homc\planning\kcith\nd.;OItl::way)
pagc2
APPLICATION CANNOT Bi
PLAN IS FOLDED TO m ]
.CCEPTED UNLESS SITE
o AN 8-1(2 X 11 FOLDER
City of Chula Vista
Application Fonn
T- en -093
For Office Use Only
caSe No~ IS- ~7 - t (p
'OpSL Ainnt1P 1000.0'0
Receipt No.
Date Rec'd. '-1/^ ,:F
Accepted by;]' e , , '
Project No: FA-'7i /.t>' ,
OpSL No. DQ- '5io2
CIP No.'
Rehired Case No.
fcz-Cf7-0;t, GPA-'17-i);)..
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title Gateway Plaza
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
730 "H" Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 571-030-1200
3. Brief Project Description 4,800 square foot retail center (existing)
4. Name of Applicant Baron Land LLC
Address 5925 Kearny Villa Rd. #100 Fax# 565-4404 Phone 565-4400
City San Diego State Ca Zip 92123-1004
5. Name of Preparer/Agent same as above
Address Fax# 565-4404 Phone 565-4400
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Pennits or approvals required.
.lQl General Plan Amendment
-1QLRezone{Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Pennit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentalive Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
Conditional Use Pennit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Pennit
If project is a Gene!~ Plan AjJ1endment and/or rezone, please indicate the ch,ap,ge in deSignati;nto~
COI1!,Pf'of. .J.-/Jr:P~t'f;./ C.V to 'et-!(eTcU..J:("OIHme,'cl ?/!;:7C
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ Grading Plan' Arch. Elevations _ Hydrological Study
_ Parcel Map = Landscape Plans _ Biological Study
Precise Plan _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Archaeological Study
= Specific Plan _ Improvement Plans _ Noise Assessment
_ Traffic Impact Report _ Soils Report _ Other Agency Pennit
Hazardous Waste Assessment _ Geotechnical Report ~ Other Site Plan
WPC:F:'.HOME\Pl..A'fNING\STORID\1021-A.93 (Ref. IOW.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page t
7. Indicate other app' tions for pennits or approvals that are . - '1g submitted at this time.
a. Permits or approvals required.
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific PlaIl
Conditional Use Pennit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Pennit
~ General PlaIl Amendment
~ Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel- Map
Site PlaIl & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Pennit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT - EXISTING PROJECT - NO NEW ADDITIONS PROPOSED.
1-
1.
Land Area: square footage 18048 or acreage .414
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. nl a
a.
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be
utilized? Existing Building
Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
C. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
g. . Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rental price range
1. Square footage of structure
J. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
1. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3.
Complete this section if project is commercial or~korXR~tI5e.
a. Type(s)oflanduse l?e-tQ( l(lo;f1111ef'(!(~.fl St:;le.s aN&Sep',,',re5
b. Floor area 4,800 sq. ft. Height of structures(s) 20 ft. one-story
c. Type of construction used in the structure v - -Non-Rated
VIPC:F:\HOME\PLANN1NG\STOREIN021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 2
d. Describe I )r access points to the structures and tl ,rientation to adjoining properties
and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift
Number of shifts Total
g. ~stimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day
1. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
J. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
k. Hours of operation
I. Type of exterior lighting
f
If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional project characteristics
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
I. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)?
Existing Building-No new additions proposed.
WPC:F:\HOMh"\PLA.'lNING\ST0RED\1021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1021.93)
Page 3
2. Is any type of gr. 19 or excavation of the property antici. .d? N (J ;f,/ j;
If yes, complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled. how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fIll will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
A verage depth of cut
Maximum depth of fIU
Average depth of fIll
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used {air conditioning, electrical ~pliance, heating equipment, etc.)
Exu1i";9-:- (f{/if{! ,dt-u&7fI;erR cb-f- Sertrrc.6 C7SSaclofep
I.U (tt, J(5tfc{( / BOStlf? (F
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
Ntf/V~
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jobs. 7ft.o.rc:. qS56dafeR It.J/fA /?efc;.// Bv.s;n~JS
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? NO
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? /f;L.
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fIll slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing Building-No new additions proposed.
WPC':F:\HOME\PLA"fNINGSTORElN021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 4
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENV )NMENTAL SETIING
1.
Geologv
Has a geology study been conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made?
(If yes, please attach)
NO
NO
2. Hvdrologv
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site?
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO'
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
YES - EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE CHANNEL
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake, reservoir or bay? NO
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO
e.
Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location.
Building and Drainage Facilities.
Existing
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
NO
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family residences)? NO
4. Biology
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? NO
b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? NO
c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No xx (Please attach a copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter, and
species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project.
EXISTING PROJECT.
WPC:F:\HOMBPL\NNING\5TORIDJ021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 5
5. Past Use of the La
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? NO
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? NO
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
NO
d. What was the land previously used for? DO NOT KNOW.
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. 4,800
sq. ft. retail center zoned C-V
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North H Street and Trolley Station
South Mobil Home Park
East ARCO AM/PM Mini-Mraket and Gas Station
West Drainaqe Channel and Freeway Off-Ramp
7.
Social
a.
b.
A:re there any residents on site? NO If so, how many?
A:re there any current employment opportunities on site? YES
If so, how many and what type? Restaurant, Allstate Insurance
and Communications Business~
8. Please provide any other information which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
This is an existing project that was built in 1989 as a retail center.
All required governmental approvals were obtained and complied with at
that time to the best of our knowledge.
WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1021-A.93 (Ref. 1021).93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 6
E. CERTIFICATION
I, as owner~
Baron Land LLC
5925 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 100, San Diego, Ca 92123-1004
Print name
James A. Clarke, Manager
or
I, consultant or agent*
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
attachments thereto.
//~~d
~
wner/t>>JmeXJi.KJdXsomW{SigmHHH::
or
Consultant or Agent Signature
/i/sj9;7
Date / .
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
WPC:F:\HOME\PLANN1NG\ST0RED\1021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1021.93)
Page 7
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
I.
List the names of all persons have a fmancial interest in the contract, Le., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
James A. Clarke
Diane Clarke
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in
the partnership.
same as above
3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust.
n/a
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions. Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
NO
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
c02!!Eactors Whfry U~. 9 assigI}ed to represent you before the City in this matter.
-.jaW1e.s ,'(a I"t'e..
/'1a7'/ <=' e::0..sr;11
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No f"'J If yes, state which Council
member(s): .
Person is defmcd as: . AIly individual. firm, co-partnership, joint vc:nDlre. association. social club. fraternal organizarion. corporation. estate,
tnlst, receiver. syndicate, this and any other counry I city and county. city. municipality. district or other political subdivision, or any other group
or combination acting as a unit. .
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Baron Land LLC
James A. Clarke, Manager
Date: j/IYP?
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
WPC,F,IHOMEIPLANNtNGISTOREDII021-A.91R,r. 1020.93)(Ref. 1022.93)
Page II
Case N 0.18-97 -16
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent
Baron Land LCC
'1.,
2.
Lead Agency Name
and Address:
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
5925 Kearney Villa Rd. #100
San Diego, CA 92123-1004
4.
Name of Proposal:
Gateway Plaza
5, Date of Checklist: March 7,1997
Pot~ntially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant Ko
Impact . l\.litigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or D D 181 D
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 181
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: At this time, the General Plan designation and the Zoning designation are not
compatible. Project applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment from Professional and
Administrative to Retail Commercial, and a Rezone from C- V (Visitor-Commercial) to C-C
(Retail Central -Commercial). Land uses will be restricted through a Specific Plan so that any
potential land use conflicts will be avoided in the future.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lcss than
Signifkant Unless Si::nilic:ant 1\'0
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
II, POPliLATION AND HOliSING, Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offIcial regional or local 0 0 0 181
.,
population projections? '
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181
housing?
Comments: Neither population nor demographics would be impacted by the proposed
project. The project would not have any impact on housing stock, or create a demand for
additional housing.
ill, GEOPHYSICAL, Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181
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?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The project will not cause significant geophysical impacts on the site.
IV, WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
Potentially
Potential!) Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant ;'\oio
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 [gI
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
''i.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 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 0 0 0 [gI
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 [gI
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 t8I
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 ~
. groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 [gI
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 [gI
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 [gI
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by project implementation.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 [gI
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 [gI
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 [gI
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 [gI
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 [gI
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: Project will not cause significant adverse effects to air quality.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Signiria.nt Unless Signifja.nl ",
Impact 1\Iitig~led Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or...trafflc congestion? 0 0 0 181
';
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g., fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: Primary roads are adequate to serve the site. Project will not affect roadway adequacy.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181
trees) ?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: On-site there does not exist any sensitive species of plants or animals. No impacts
to biological resources would occur from the project.
Potentially
Potential!)' Significant Less than
Signiricant Unlcss Significant ;0.;0
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MII'I'ERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 t8:I
plans? "
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 t8:I
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 t8:I
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed project does not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans and
does not propose the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
lX. HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 t8:I
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 t8:I
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 t8:I
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 t8:I
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 t8:I
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: Project would not create significant hazards on-site.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 t8:I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 t8:I
Comments: The proposed project would NOT create an increase in noise. There are sensitive
noise receptors (multi-family establishments) directly to the east of the project site and some
public concern has been expressed about existing noise levels.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection?
o
o
o
t8:I
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant I"io
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 0 181
~'1.:
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 l1?J
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Srandards?
o
o
o
181
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
l1?J
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of
the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met,
since the nearest fire station is 1.25 miles away and would be associated with a 5 minute
response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Fire Department operations.
b) Police
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Response times are within the recommended threshold for police services. Project will
not affect police service to the site.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" 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
1-805 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 will comply
with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Project will not create significant traffic impacts.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
181
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
So
Impact
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 'acres/l,OOO population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not af~ct Parks and Recreation operations.
,
D
D
D
t8:I
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 will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by this project.
f) Sewer
D
D
D
t8:I
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect sewer capacities.
g) Water
D
D
D
t8:I
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will
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: This project will not affect water capacities.
XlII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new rystems. or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? D D D t8:I
b) Communications systems? D D D t8:I
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D t8:I
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D D t8:I
Potentially
Potentially SignHic:ant Less than
Significant Unless Signiricant :'\'0
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
'\ Comments: Existing infrastructure is adequate to serve the project.
XIV. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181
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 spill light? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view and will not result in an
offensive site for public view.
xv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
(M:\home\planning\kcith\r.~plate'.ck[isuem)
page8
Potentially
SiGnificant.
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Vnlcss
i\litigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
",
Impact
Comments: The site is not in an area of high potential for archeological resources. The
proposal will not have any negative impacts on archeological resources.
'\
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Will the
proposal resulr in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleolltological resources?
o
o
o
181
Comments: Due to the fact that the site has previously been disturbed and is not lqcated in an
area of high potential paleontological resources as identified by the City's General Plan EIR,
no negative impacts will occur as a result of this project.
XVII. RECREATION, Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181
plans or programs?
Comments: Existing recreational facilities would not be affected through project implementation.
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
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: Project site will not create unhealthful conditions.
o
o
o
181
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: Project will not affect short-term or long-term goals.
o
o
o
181
(M:\home\planning\keith\templ:lIe\cklist.tem)
page9
rot~ntially
Pot~ntjally Significant Len than
Significant Unless Significant ~o
Impact J'Hiti!:,atc:d Impact Impact
C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
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: Project will not create cumulative impacts.
d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 ~
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: Project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
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: Nt A
Project Proponent
Date
(M:\bome\planning\keith\t~mplat~\d:.!ist.tem)
pagelO
XX, ENVIRO;-"MENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTF.D:
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 0 TIansportationlCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
o Water 0 Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I frod that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I8I
I frod that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
.-
o
I frod that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
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.
o
I frod that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
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 detennination.
o
1/Y~7
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
(M:\home\planning\keitl\\lemplalc\ck:!ist.tem)
pagel!
I.
Current Zoning on site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Case # IS-97-16
CVP (Visitor-Commercial subject to a Precise Plan)
R:/<:" V'?
MHP
R3
Freeway
Does the project conform to the current zoning? No
II.
General Plan land use designation on site:
CO (Commercial-Office)
North:
South:
East:
West:
PA (Professional and Administrative)/''f'S
P A (Professional and Administrative)
High-Residential
Freeway
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? No
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated?
No
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? Nt A
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route).
III. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Nt A
School
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
IV. Remarks:
~t:-~4- R
Director 0 irfn~g~r "0.- eprese
---
Capacity
Units
Proposed
Students
Generated
From Project
Enrollment
Generating
Factors
.30
.29
.10
3/101::7
Case No. IS -97-/6
LANDSCAPE PLANNING
A. Does the project affut native plant communities? ~
If so, please identify which communities. ^fa.
~ill the project require native planting? (Please describe) 1k.e. ~;-k- LlL{fV'd--G-
\ '5 ~\\\k J.eve lGDeJ j i'V\c.Ct.v:!.\'/lG\ Ictvv;{ S<:P$1'~, ' ~(j
~" ~ \ . (\
B. Please identify any imponant or highly visible hillsides on or adjacent to the project.
~
What landscaping conditions (if any) will be required for these hillsides? V\../ V(
C.
Of the total area to be developed, how much, and which areas ar~ expc;:ted to be rep~ante
and require supplemental watering? (Please describe). 1'/1[. S Lk (s: L c..r..rr
:41\t ~evd ~~ . .
E. Me there any other landscape requirements or mitigation for the project? ~
csw-
1'll,Q7
Date
City Landscape Architut or Representative
WPCoF:\HOIo!E\P!.AN!.1NG\S'I'OIUJN022.9J (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. t020.9J)
Page 8
. . ~- ~~-W-Y~bb+
Case No. J"S-''n-I(,
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGII\'EERING DIVISION
I. Draina!1:e
A. Is the project site within a flood plain? . ,JD.
If so; state which FEMA FJoodway Frequency Boundary. N..jA .
B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~ R..d<I
"1Z> ~ f!,/!6r~$ ~ ~IS /IV~'''-'I &oC/AlPH2-Y
C. Me they adequate to serve the project? YG.;..
If not, please explain briefly. ")IA.
D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? Co~-l>
JZ.!S~UI.-.. J """"~(~"= rJ.... .~ ''''-<- -ro ...roP;rtt. 'fZ.e.:.~Uf-Atl-J ~ CoP ""E-
L.,,.JEl> &~,"J_ ib w,:;.~.
E. AIe they adequate to serve the project? YES.
If not, please explain briefly. "VA'
n. TransPortation
A. What roads provide primary access to the project? ",.,.'f ~ WW-f<::!+ IS ~c,,~,~
I
A$ A ~IX-l AN!;;: M....;:rO~ 9nZl!!er ILl ~ C-rN!s 6-~;>v.N.
B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
E;o<:rS,.,,..r,:; ZPf'.It,.!.t<;. ~ q(p A-rrT" j f'!Z6?<:;su;> z",.J.,~I"-::!;> 1<92 A'D'r .
f'IOT1::..: 1-f(~C- V!>E WA< A6 A ~~IGE ~.".L~-'S"OAT:7r .-ze,~d:lFWHI('~ WEu...
f
C. What arlfh~t~rage Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the. primary access roads before and
after project completion?
Street Name Before After
"H'~"'" ~<W,../") ~JSSD
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) "C" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify, 1-10,
WPC:r.~"1NGI5!OIUIND22.93 (R.... 1021.93) (Rd. ID2D.93)
Page 2
-.--- ------
. D.
~,
Cas~ NO...!.i;;-Q7-fb
Jf th, A.D.T. or L.O.s. "C" d,s;gn volum, is unknown or not applicablo., ~xplain bri,fly.
-1ijA-:~~- -- _u______.______ ---- - ---- .- --- -. -- - .--.----- -.--
E.
Are. th~ primary =ss roads adequ31e to serve th~ project? YG.:;. I!z:,wIWU,. 11.1 ~ ~ -n-I-tS
If not, please explain briefly.,.,~ . Sf:GMe;..rr DP "I-< I{~.A?< WI~ /J~'::?7l:: 13":-
CD" 5-nzvc.nr:> 17) 5()(-L.ArJ6. 1v'IA:TDf!.. ~~"'"S
"7?> Au-?1MO~ ~rz.E. ~ ~IL-
Would the project =ate una=ptabl~ uve~~r'S~1ce (LOS) 31 intersecions adjacent to
or in the vicinity of the project site? ND.
If so, identify: Location "'fA,
Cumulative L.O.s. NA .
Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An
equivalent of 2400 or'more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more ~-hoUI vehicle
trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate th31 the project will not =31e an unmitig31able advers~ impact, or th31
all relaIed traffic impacts are not mitigaIed to a level of non-signllicance.
Yes X. No
F.
Tne following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not requir-....d.
G. Is =:ric mitigation required to reduce traffic impa..'iS th31 will result from implem~ntation of
the proposed project ? Yes)( No
If y~s, please describe. 1./ I~
H. Is the project co?~ist::nt with the criteria established in the City's Transponarion Phasing Plan,
General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any
oth~r IT'".Jfic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed
project.. YES .
1
],
Is a traffic study required?
Is there any dedication required? ~
If so, please sp-...cify, .
y
No
Yes
No
,
. ~. - .-
-wr....:F:~-A:h:"1NG\S'I'ORIDJC2l.93 eRe!. JC'Zl.!13} (KC. 102D.Y3)
Y88ej
Case No. rS.q7-tf..
K.
Is there any street widening required? NO.
If so, please specify. lot/A.
L.
Me there any other street improvements required? Nt>.
If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements.
N/A.
I
I
I
M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for
existing conditions and future build out General PIan conditions? (Please provide a ~rief
explanation). ~1ST11J~ Cb,.Jt>"I"IUS ~y~
Pu"T1Y~ t;..E..J.~ op~ "6UII..bO</"'- C<:>o.J."br-nr:l-ic,:!pt4o . "71fE ~.NF'2.At.- pLN! P-E<j>uI/ZE6
A 6r)(-~ MAi:JZ;Il- f.I',~../Wff1f A 1ZArs~""E'D,4<l... WIfEIJ W/r)E:l.JEb, oN-$~
ill. Soils "PItAAtJG Wru../Jo Lo,J,(;C/Z. se. ~<.fAre Fb~ "7"1f$. P~.s PrZcFe6l!'D WE:..
.
A. Axe there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? NO.
B. If yes, specify these 'conditions. "'fA
C. Is a S oils Report necessary? No.
IV. Land Fonn
A. What is the average~~~slope of the site? 2 %
B. What is the maximum~m slope of the site? 2l>7: (We.fi-n:.P.J...!( bIb!<' Sc..oPEs-.)
v. ~
AIe there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? folD. \
VL Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day?
Solid q(P /....e.s ID~Y C r:xsEC, ..,/!,.,.. F.<Lc.,:ED FJ(.r~I'-"r)'
Liquid /(.SA ~f../$!PA:V(ro,2t:; E..Z;>~. 6<c..e.ec6 GCI9rI/o-IC. p,y /.St::Drk(3'1/3 G~1
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? ~ .
(i) E:X/5irlJG. '+~ SF""E!(z. !..A"n5i-r2A<-N'r wP-Br GJ:r;> D1'" 'I'I>01U>t..v.;.. (2) e,'t vc.p Pc.I~"_
~""~rz... u-~ R ve:. r::''''er" E:Asr~) ~~ "P"~ 7DJ ThE: WIF."5rFfJ I-V ~)
~~. I
. i
Axe they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) YES. I
!
WPC"':~G\STORDN022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020,93)
Page 4
, ''-'''-....~-'fo-YS~
Case No. IS 47-lfD
VII. National Pol1utant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Storrnwater Reouirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Storrnwater Permit? /-lD,
. If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES permit is required. ,J fA .
I
Will a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project?
Yes It No
Additional comments NC>N.~'
>
v.m Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures. or other
issues. NCl'ifE.--.
~ r!/) ~/
City +eer or Representative
,;zJ~ JCj'J
Date
WPC,f:'<PME\PU.!OONG\STORED\102293 (Rd. 1021.93) (ReI. 1020.93)
Page 5
J..
ROUTING FORM
,.-"-' .
-,-,,--,":::<;'::' !
~- ...,.,,'.....~..;'.....~
'> t;"'.."---- \
'.
\ ~ r)'1,\9g1
, \ ~L'
;;~ ~-
\ ..--.-
\ .-.... ,-;:'~ .. ~
...-~ '\J\-" -~ ~
C1t~Cf'-;-:": '.--
.,'1
DATE:
January 22, 1997
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
J.ohn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Ken Goldkemp, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Anne Moore, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dee I< EIR)
Doug Perry".Fire. [)epartment
Marty Scb111idt,parks. I< .Redreation.~.
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
current Planning
conservation Coordinator
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Cbula Vista Elem. school District, Dr. Lowell Billings
SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS I< EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-97-16/FA-716 /DQ368 )
Cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP )
Review of Environmental Review Record {FC-_ERR-~
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment from Professional
and Administrative Commercial to Retail
Commercial. and Rezone from C-V (Visitor
commercial) to C-C (Retail Central
commercial) .
Location: 730 -H- street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by Feb. 5, 1997.
Comments:
r..1 ~
,'VD ...
f~), .
y~
1,~ ,'\1
.
Case No. /5-97-/0
FIRE DEPARTMENf
A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? And what is the Fire Department's estimated
reaction time? . I '/1./ .
B. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fIre protection for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? 16{'
c.
Remarks
j.JrJ fo/C'
v:a~,"~~ >
Fire Marshal I
:/'tir/f7
Date
WPC""'JIOMEll'UNNING'STDlU:D'J022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93)
Page 6
CHULA V_STA POLICE
CRIME PREVENTION
Plan Review Recommendations
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
PROJECT:
730 H Street
The Police Department and the Crime Prevention Unit will be
able to provide an adequate level of service for this
proposed site.
There is no expected increase in personnel or equipment in
order to maintain Police Department services.
~ Please forward additional information regarding this project
to the Crime Prevention Unit.
Estimated response time for Priority 1 calls to this project:
Grid 23: 2.78% of the CFS are P-1, with an A.R.T. of 03:23:00
Estimated response time for Priority 2 calls to this project:
Grid 23: 27.37 % of the CFS are P-2, with an A.R.T. of 04:54:00
Comments: From 01/01/96 throu$h 12/12/96 there were 6581
Calls For Service (CFS) within th~s district. 2346 of these
complaints resulted in a crime report. The highest number of
calls (1421) were related to disturbing the peace, with an
additional 1309 miscellaneous reports (missing persons, runaways,
warrant arrests, etc), 654 theft reports and 648 burglary
reports.
NOTE: The above listed response times are within the recommended
threshold for police services.
Priority one and two calls for service together equal are more
thatn 30% of the CFS, indicating a combined response time of
04:45.
Thank you for the opportunity to have input into the planning
process. If you should have questions, please feel free to
contact me anytime at 691-5187.
cc:
,CPTED
PD/cpu 11/95
ROUTING FORM
RECEIVED
DATE: ,,' January 22, 1997
" \
~~~~\, ., "--.
~y \ A=Larson;~!?u.~)cj~ng ,& Hous~ng
fa@ (\ \ 'hn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
~.~ ~ ,g'j \ 'i,ff Swanson, Enc;rinee:r:ing (EIR only)
',\\) c~~ ~ en' GOldkemp, Eng~neer~ng (EIR only)
"\%" ' Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
" \, ~Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
'~ ' Doug Perry, Fire Department
Marty schmidt, Parks & Recreation
,/, Crime prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Conservation Coordinator
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elem. school District, Dr. Lowell Billings
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (community Development Projects)
Other
JAN ;::3 1::;,,~
Iv"7.'
CITy ','
BUtLDINGU' ,
& f1(Ju
....,'........
,
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS-97-16/FA-716 /DQ368 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _IFB-_IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_IFB-_IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- IFA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of: General Plan Amendment from Professional
and 7Inministrative Commercial to Retail
commercial and Rezone from c-v (Visitor
Commercial) to C-C (Retail Central
Commercial).
Location: 730 -H- Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by Feb. 5. 1997. .f
, rev.;,';' . J jX{{L ~(Ix V{J1-t ,
Comments: (j) !f'c~~~ 1.1 a!o (/JIb[ ~d~( /{)~Lj
cD [p-~tJ~ ?cn~d,dL~ r~, (JILalL ~Vj/!-ui.
, G/7/'1?
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PAJRICK A. JUDD
PAMELA B. SMITH
MIKE A SPEYRER
SUPERINTENDENT
UBIA S. GII, Ph.D.
CHULA VI..... ~'A ELEMENTARY SCHl JL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600
January 28, 1997
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental section
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
RE: IS-97-16 / FA-716 / DQ-368
Project: Gateway Plaza
Applicant: Baron Land LLC
Address: 730 "H" street, Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to advise you that the project located at 730
"H" street is within the Chula Vista Elementary School
District which serves children from Kindergarten through
Grade 6. Mueller Elementary is the home school for this
project.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of
approximately 2-3 percent over the past several years,
and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity
has been exceeded at many schools and temporary
relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate
increased enrollments. The District also buses students
outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate
growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.30
for non-residential area to be charged (Chula vista
Elementary School District - $.14/square foot; Sweetwater
Union High School District - $.16/square foot) to assist
in financing facilities needed to serve growth. Since
this project is a renovation of an existing building,
fees will only be charged on new square footage, should
any be added.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sinz:;~ -
~11 BillJ
Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services and Support
LB:dp
,weetwater Union High School Dist! -- __
Administration Center .D ~ @ ~ 0 \W ~ I';;.
1130 Fifth Avenue I
Chula Vista, California 91911-289€ FEB _ I': 1997 \
(619) 691-5553 ..J
. . .f)
.
Division of Planning and Facilities
January 30,1997
Mr. Doug Reid
City of Chula Vista
Environmental Section
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: IS-97-16/FA-716/DQ368
The Sweetwater Union High School District does not object to the proposed rezone
application. School fees will be mitigated through the payment of school fees.
Sf2-~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/ml
lfD'rn@rn 0 J~ ~
I!W
i!i,\! FEB 191997
" ~ '
iI":
,j UI
JI
1239 Rippey St.
EI Cajon, CA 92020
February 10, 1997
Environment Review Coordinator
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
I oppose the change in zoning of 730 "H" Street from C-V (Visitor Commercial) to
C-C (Retail Central Commercial).
I am the owner of Bison Senior Citizen Mobile Home Park, which is located
immediately behind the proposed project.
This change in zoning will create noise and disturbances from increased traffic
and late-night activity. This type of property zoning should not be adjaccent to
residential property.
I am concerned about the senior citizens who reside in my park. We now have a
quiet, safe environment. I think that re-zoning would disrupt the neighborhood if
bars, nightclubs, card rooms, etc. are established here.
Sincerely,
~i?~~
Inez Patterson
D f~@rno~~"
I FEB I 7 1997
.!J
Bison Mobile Home Park
708 "H" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91912
February 1997
Environmental Review Coordinator
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
"
We, the residents of the Bison Senior Citizen Mobile Home Park, oppose the change in
zoning of 730 "H" Street, Chula Vista, from C-V (Visitor Commercial) to C-C (Retail
Central Commercial).
We are senior citizens and our residences are located immediately behind the
proposed project. This change in zoning will create noise and disturbances from
increased traffic and late-night activity. This type of property zoning should not be
adjacent to residential property.
As senior citizens, we are concerned about maintaining a quiet, safe environment. We
feel that re-zoning would disrupt our neighborhood if bars, nightclubs, card rooms, etc.
are established here.
DATE
NAME
DATE
NAME
d-/;!/i1 /JJ;JV11f:0.om~ C J tJ
Jj II! r 7 lru0//l ,]}iJ/!v ~-J '-1- "I, ~l?b "'-, ~
2114 >?; 1" ( ~({Ii f ,j
2/ IIj/j? X~~~.cc~
J,//yJ9h)%~ -fl'5
,+/ r( p7 (2/HIi( (~{(~/
t?Y;/J7 }~tf(l7
:2)/'1 )17 Sr. m~
1/ tJ
?- -Ji ,'")J.#1, )......:-'~7t.-~
() .. (/
;-'-11 /?7~ ~
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, P11D.
SHARON GILES
PAJRICK A. JJDD
PAMELA. B. SMITH
MlJ<EA. 5PEYBER
SUPERINTENDENT
UBIA5.GIL.P11.D.
CHULA VI 'A ELEMENTARY SCH(-)L DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT IW~R;m- @
!!.~~< @ O~~i~7
. / 71997 .:illi!
- L_ --.1Jbi
!
March 13, 1997
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: 15-97-16
Project: 720 and 730 "H" Street, Chura Vista
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to advise you that the projects located at 720 and 730 "H" street are within
the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten
through Grade 6. Mueller Elementary is the home school for these projects.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of approximately 2-3 percent
over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity
has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are
being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses
students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in
achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.30 for non-residential area to
be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.14/square foot; Sweetwater
Union High School District - $.16/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed
to serve growth. Since these projects are a renovation of existing buildings and/or a
rezoning from visitor commercial to retail central commercial, fees will only be
charged on new square footage, should any be added.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
....
...
L ell Billings
Assistant Superintendent for
Business Services and Support
LB:dp
c:feexist
"fL.... .'
/.1.
-J
Q
~
-
Ul. .
,
.}.. ,
,
,Y ,
i
J' ''"'
()' I~
i C
I;j ,
~ I oJ
\:J , -
,,.. .::>
~ ~">.; M ..'''-...
-~
is ~ \...1 III
III ;:I:.J
~\:J !o.
~ i~ ".
:3;: , - <:'"
t,;~ ,
~ -- 'u
><'::!.. "1 Q:
"----==.J UJ \1.0
i.:E
f.J.... ~ ~w
-"
L-............ 0 '8~
" .:
I l I r ---
---- --
EA5E/>!Dff PI:>
D'''.'.'' \1
Ii
a'\
l""
. (\"
o
b
~
t;
i
I €X/STIII"
o
....
it
I-.
\'J
'2:
c
-
1~~"~
v'
'J:
/l:.:
\,,;
. ;;.
c..:
W
II:
.J''^
,
<,,,
/)
-~l
)
F
ATTACHMENT 5
--------------
;;--....
~f~
2>"
~~
/'
.J
~
~
rl
,)
ATTACHMENT 6
.TEMENT
1HE
IT OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ~
You arc required (0 file a Statement' of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interesls, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council. Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosc<l:
L List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, conlractor, subcontractor, malerial supplier. .
BARON LAND LLC - OWner
2. If any person" identified pursuanl to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
JAMES A. CLARKE, Manager
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profil organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N7A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City starr, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No xx If yes, please indicate person(s):
. .
5. Please identify each and every person, including' any agents, employees, consultants. or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the Cily in this mailer.
N/A
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding ciCCI ion period? Yes_ No..!.. If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
./
Date: r/c?t/ JlL,
~ /'
" . . (NOTE:
SI~_'
BARON LAND LLC
BY, JAMES A. CLARKE. MANAGF:R
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
· Pme", is defiJlcd lu: "Any iJldividucJ/, finn, co-parT1lmhip, jow w:naut, associariOfI, social club, frarcnwl orgaJlization, corporation. cstalt, D1LU, tue;~ syndiCale,
this alld any OM COWJty, dry DJuJ cowwy, cUy mwlicipaliry, disrri(~ or orha political subdivisioll, or allY odu!r 60uP M combination Qcting QI Q &U1iL"
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ...L
Meeting Date 4/9/97
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-97-03; Consideration of amendment to Sections
19.64.150 and 19.64.155 of the Municipal Code to allow for
reconstruction of nonconforming residential units - City Initiated.
BACKGROUND
The City Council recently received written and oral comments from residents wishing to secure
fmancing of residential properties wherein the properties are classified as nonconforming based
on zoning and/or density and therefore have reconstruction limits if partially or completely
destroyed. This City initiated proposal is to amend sections 19.64.150 and 19.64.155 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to eliminate damage percentage restrictions related to
reconstruction of residential units which are nonconforming due to current zoning and/or density.
These provisions would not apply to industrial zoned properties.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that, as a procedUral amendment, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the General
Rule exemption section 15061(b)(3). (CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential
for causing significant effects on the environment).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCA-
97-03 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend sections 19.64.150 and
19.64.155 of the Municipal Code relating to reconstruction of nonconforming residential units.
MAIN ISSUFS:
1. The current Municipal Code places restrictions on the rebuilding of non-conforming
residential structures destroyed by certain catastrophes thereby creating financing
hardships for persons seeking new loans.
2. The proposed amendment would allow for reconstruction of residential units which are
nonconforming due to zoning and/or density which are partially or completely destroyed.
3. The proposed amendment would not apply to industrial zoned properties.
DISCUSSION:
Current Situation
Public input has recently been received by the City Council expressing concerns with the City's
current restrictions regarding the ability to rebuild an existing nonconforming residential unit(s)
Page 2, ItPIl1,L
Meetina Date 4/9/97
within the City. This includes units which are non-conforming due to current zoning and/or
density restrictions. Section 19.64.150 of the Zoning Ordinance currently allows reconstruction
of nonconforming residential units only if sixty percent or less of the value of the building is
destroyed. It has been indicated that this current restriction is causing a hardship on certain
property owners who are unable to obtain loans for the purchase or refinancing of residential
units due to lender requirements. The one current exception to this (Section 19.64.155) is in
regard to condominium units which are nonconforming due to current density restrictions. These
nonconforming condominiums may be rebuilt even if 100% of their value is destroyed.
The proposed ordinance amendment request would modify the current City provisions in order
to allow all residential units (which are not zoned industrial) to be rebuilt even if 100% of the
square footage of the structure(s) is destroyed.
Proposed text modification
The existing section 19.64.155 is proposed to be modified as follows:
19.64.150 Non-residential structures Damaged or destroyed IIBCG Replacement restrictions.
Any pon-residential nonconforming building damaged more than sixty percent of it value, as
established by the director of housing inspection, at the time of damage by fire, flood, explosion,
wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other calamity or act of God, shall not be restored or
reconstructed and used as before such happening except as provided in Section 1~,&1,155; but
if less than sixty percent damaged, it may be restore, reconstructed or used as before, provided
that such be initiated within six months and be substantially completed within twelve months of
such beginning.
Section 19.64.155 Residential Condominium Units - Replacement Permitted
Any residential condominium unit which was lel!allv constructed and is nonconforming with
respect to the current zoninl! and/or density of the DroOOrtv shall be allowed to be reconstructed
in the event of any damage or destruction of the existin2 residential imDrovements l1li
=~ as defined in Section 19.64.150, provided such be initiated within six
months and be substantially completed within twelve months of such happening. This allowance
shall not aDDlv to industrial zoned Drooerties. Said reconstruction shall meet all applieatieft
aDDlica~ code requirements in place at the time of reconstruction and, with rcspcct to an).
inel'CWJO in Mon, the owner shall comply with any appropriate finonoial or other moohanisms
sponsored by thc Chuln Vista Elementary School District and thc Sweetwater Union High School
District, as mny be approved by thc City mnnngcr, to mitigate impacts to school facilitics. i!!!!
shall not be buill bevond the existinl! buildinl! foororint.
Page 3, Item.1...
Meeting Date 4/9/97
State Law Pre-emption for non charter cities
Section 65852.25 was added to the California Government Code in 1994 to require all non-
chartered cities to allow residential units which are nonconforming due to the current zoning of
the property (other than for industrial zoned properties) to be reconstructed if 100% of the
structure was destroyed.
Chula Vista is one of 4 (four) charter cities located in San Diego County for which this new
provision of the Government Code does not apply, thus the necessity to modify our ordinance
if we wish to be consistent with state law as well as the majority of cities within San Diego
County .
Response from other charter cites:
The City of San Diego has recently amended their code to allow a property owner to obtain a
reconstruction permit to allow non-conforming structures to be rebuilt if 100% destroyed. It is
a rather lengthy, costly and complicated process. In addition, due to the nature of their code,
residential units are allowed by right in most of the commercially zoned areas.
Re&PQnse from the Fire Department:
Historically, there have been no instances of a non-conforming residential unit being destroyed
by more than 60% of its value. Therefore, it is anticipated that amending the code to allow a
100% rebuilt provision of nonconforming residential structures, would have little if any impact
on the City.
Response from school district:
No concerns.
ANALYSIS:
Because this recommendation is to allow BIl nonconforming residential units (including single
family dwellings) to be rebuilt, the current 60% role described in section 19.64.150 of the
Municipal Code will apply only to non-residential units. Staff recommends minor changes to
this section in order to clarify that it will apply only to non-residential units. The bulk of the
changes will occur to section 19.64 .150 in order to expand its coverage to include all residential
units and to make it applicable to non-conforming units due both to zoning and/or density.
It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed text amendment will be negligible in terms of
the physical environment. Historically, there have been few residential units damaged due to
natural causes to the point where the unit could not be rebuilt due to current code restrictions.
It is anticipated that such will continue to be the case. At the same time, amending the code to
Page 4, Item.1..
Meeting Date 419/97
indicate that the nonconforming residential unit can be rebuilt if 100% of its value is destroyed,
reduces any burden and/or hardship on citizens and property owners who may not otherwise be
able to obtain a loan on their property.
CONCLUSION
For the above mentioned reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
Attachments
1. P1annina Commi..ion Resolution
(a: pcrpt\Doaco)
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-97-o3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTIONS 19.64.150 AND 19.64.155 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
RECONSTRUCTION OF NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
WHEREAS, the current ZOning Ordinance allows residential units which are
nonconforming due to current zoning and/or density to be reconstructed only if 60% or less of
the value of the building is damaged/destroyed (except condominium units which are 100%), and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested staff to investigate the current restrictions
governing the reconstruction of nonconforming residential units, and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a request to amend the Municipal Code to residential
units which are nonconforming due to current zoning and/or density to be reconstructed if 100%
destroyed, and
WHEREAS, these provisions shall not apply to property containing an industrial zone
designation, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 9,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal, as a procedural amendment, is
exempt from environmental review and is not subject to CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED
AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council
amend Section 19.64.155 of the Municipal Code to allow for reconstruction of nonconforming
residential units as shown on Exhibit . A . .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day of by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING SECTIONS 19.64.150 AND 19.64.155 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE ALLOWANCES FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Ordinance allows residential units which are
nonconforming due to current zoning and/or density to be reconstructed only if 60% or less of
the value of the building is damaged/destroyed (except condominium units which are 100%), and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested staff to investigate the current restrictions
governing the reconstruction of nonconforming residential units, and
WHEREAS, the City has initiated a request to amend the Municipal Code to residential
units which are nonconforming due to current zoning and/or density to be reconstructed if 100%
destroyed if outside of a industrial zoned property, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that, as a procedural
amendment, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA)
under the General Rule Exemption Section 15061(b)(3); and,
WHEREAS, the provisions as set forth in this Ordinance shall not apply to properties
containing an industrial zoned designation; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 1997, the City Planning Commission voted _ to_to
recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance in accordance with Resolution
PCA 97-03; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Municipal Code
amendment application 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
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 22,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend
Section 19.64.150 and 19.64.155 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read:
19.64.150 Non-residential structures -Replacement restrictions.
Any non-residential nonconforming building damaged more than sixty percent of it value, as
established by the director of housing inspection, at the time of damage by fire, flood, explosion,
wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other calamity or act of God, shall not be restored or
reconstructed and used as before such happening ; but if less than sixty percent damaged, it may
be restore, reconstructed or used as before, provided that such be initiated within six months and
be substantially completed within twelve months of such beginning.
Section 19.64.155 Residential- Replacement Permitted
Any residential unit which was legally constructed and is nonconforming with respect to the
current zoning and/or density of the property sha11 be allowed to be reconstructed in the event
of any damage or destruction of the existing residential improvements as defined in Section
19.64.150, provided such be initiated within six months and be substantially completed within
twelve months of such happening. This allowance shall not apply to industrial zoned properties.
Said reconstruction shall meet all application applicable code requirements in place at the time
of reconstruction and shall not be built beyond the existing building footprint.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
(h: _Ip--"\jcff\o<dOIIace\ooaco)