Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1997/02/12 AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesday. February 12. 1997 CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Meetings of November 20, 1996, December 11, 1996 and January 8, 1997 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. Presentation by Barbara Bamberger/Susan Harney on Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-06; Request for a conditional use permit to continue operating a temporary truck terminal/trailer storage yard at 2400 Faivre Street - California Multi- Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Materials Company (continued from meeting of 12-11-96) Variance ZA V -96-13; Request to increase maximum lot coverage to 47% for an overhead shade cloth structure used in conjunction with home orchid growing at 1341 Park Drive, within the R-l (Single Family Residential) zone - Eugenia Hammond (continued from meeting of 1-8-97) SUPS-96-02; Request to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone - Ms. Mercedes Brambila (-more-) Agenda -2- February 12, 1997 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-24; Noticing procedures for public hearings - City Initiated 6. Appointment of representative to Beautification Awards Committee 7. Update on Council Items DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT at p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of February 19, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2/3, and to the Regular Business Meeting of February 26, 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 America!1S with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may require special accommodatio!1S to a~cess, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodatioll1 at leastfarty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in advancefor scheduled services a'!'i activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or TelecommuniFations Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. (ag2-12pc) MEMORANDUM To: Chairman and members of the Planning Commissioners Fr: Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resource Manager Da: January 31, 1997 Re: Review of Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan Three years ago, the City of Chula Vista joined a select group of cities throughout the world in a planning effort investigating the relationship between how cities are built and how local planning, transportation and land use decisions shape the amount of energy consumed in that community. This consortium was deyeloped by the International Council of Environmental Initiatives, an arm of the National League of Cities. In response to this effort, and at Council direction, the City developed a 'Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan'. Carbon dioxide is a principle "greenhouse gas" which is produced when energy is consumed. This project is part of an international treaty among 150 countries to achieve carbon dioxide reduction through cooperation and collective decision-making. Cities have been incorporated into this process because of the recognition that all local planning and development have directed consequence to energy consumption, and these decisions are made at a local level. Because the City exercises key powers over urban infrastructure, including neighborhood design, transportation infrastructure such as roads, streets, pedestrian areas, bicycle lanes and public transport, local building and facilities, these items all relate directly to the contribution of greenhouse emissions and correlated energy use. The CO2 Plan is the result of a two year planning effort by a city task force representing a broad array of interests. The Plan includes: a) a comprehensive inventory of Chula Vista's energy use and identifies where the majority of energy consumption is occurring. It looks at energy consumed by various portions of the community, including residential, industrial, commercial and transportation sectors; b) a forecast of increased energy and correlated emissions through the year 2010, taking into account projected growth in population and automobile use; c) a strategy for energy reduction, a goal to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2010, which is consistent with the international goals set for participating cities throughout the world; and, d) a set of 20 priority action measures to be implemented following Plan adoption. Each of the 20 measures is described with estimated energy, emission, and economic impacts, targeted sector and expected sector penetration, general fiscal impacts and estimated cost savings, and implementation responsibilities. In September of 1996, the Plan was noticed to the public and the City opened a 90 day public review process. Copies of the Plan were made available and distributed to City departments, the City Clerk's office, the libraries and the telecenter for public review. A copy of the notice was sent to all city commissions, including the Planning Commission, at that time. The intent of this report is to provide Planning Commissioners with advanced notice to review and, if possible, provide recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will review the Plan in a Council workshop to be held February 13th. A full presentation will be presented for the first time to the full Council at the workshop. The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to provide preliminary comments in advance of the workshop and through the formal adoption process, should Council so give that direction. A copy of the Plan is attached. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Page I, Item: . ~ Meeting Date: 02/12/97' ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: SUPS-96-06 - Request for a special use permit to continue operating a temporary truck terminal/trailer storage yard at 2400 Faivre Street - California Multi-Modal, Inc. and H.G. Fenton Material Company BACKGROUND: The Applicant, California Multi-Modal. Inc., has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the end of March or April 1997. Staff is also recommending such a continuance, The reason for recommendation is that as of this week, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is considering issuing a violation notice against CMI for excessive dust. This may change the environmental documents related to this Project and may necessitate re-posting a mitigated negative declaration with the County Clerk for a period of 30 days. There are also other issues related to conditions of approval which are a point of discussion between the Applicants and staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on SUPS-96-06 to a date uncertain in order for staff, APCD and the Applicants to work out several issues. (m:\home\planning\martin\fenton\faivre\cont.rpt) FEB 05 '97 10:00RM P.l ClI.l,[lb"onrrr." :V!.!lVfl ..()D.i\L INCORPORATED Febl1lary 03, 1997 Mr. Martin Miller Associate Planner City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Ayenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 a387 Faivre Street Cl1ula Vista, Ch e 19 11 Dear Mr. Miller, Tel 619,4&9,1551 Fax 619.423.0292 http://www.omiStt;r\oice_com It has come to our attention you have made several major changes to the Resolution of Redevelopment for the Conditional Use Permit. Two of the changes are listed on the Resolution pi<;ked up on January 28, 1997 Also our understanding is you will be making changes to this. The two c~ngesli8ted on the "Unoftlcial" Resolution that was published Jan1.lary 28, 1997 arc substantial money investments fer CMl. The investJnents would be several hundreds of thousands dollars to add the concrete apron, truck wash system, and purchase of a street sweeper. The other changes came to 1.18 verbally from Allen Jones of Fen Ion Western Properties. The changes would be only granting a one year permit, and at the termination of this permit to attach the 2387 parcel for Ii longer term Conditional User Permit As you can see the changes are very costly to CMI, and also will include our landlord for the 2387 pa.r<;el. We wi!! not be able to make decisions on all the changes prior to the February 12, 1997 meeting day. We are trying calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors in the month March to make decisions 01\ the cost issues, and attachment of the 2387 parceL We would like to ask for cOi,til\uar:ce ofthe Feb:::uary 12, 1997 meeting to the end of Mar<;h or ApriL I ultimodal, Inc. c:\rn~omce\willword~ddy\tllIl\'I\1.:mi\l;ily I;tltr ,nartin n1illcr R .E ;\ II "( '.~:' () G Q T:U E: D I S 'r A N C r: I-I "-,""-, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 3 Meeting Date 2/12/97 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Variance ZA V-96-13; request to increase maximum lot coverage to 47% for an overhead shade cloth structure used in conjunction with home orchid growing at 1341 Park Drive, within the R-l (Single Family Residential) zone - Eugenia Hammond This request is a re-hearing before the Planning Commission of a previously considered variance request for a shade cloth structure in the rear yard of a single family home located at 1341 Park Drive in the R-l Single Family zone. The applicant utilizes the shade cloth structure netting in the operation of her approved orchid growing "home occupation" conducted primarily in the backyard of her residence as well as for orchids grown as a hobby. The original request. which was denied, was for excessive lot coverage as well as setback encroachments for the shade cloth structure. However, the applicant is now proposing that the cover be moved out of the side and rear yard setbacks, and decreased in size, As a result, only the (reduced) excess lot coverage requires the approval of a variance. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption. RECOMMENDATION: That the Plarming Commission adopt attached Resolution ZA V-96- 13M approving the request based on the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site is an approximately 7,476 sq.ft. single family residential "comer" lot (Park Drive actually stubs at just beyond the residence, see locator). Although the project site is relatively level, it is situated at a lower elevation than the abutting street to the west and at a higher elevation than the easterly neighboring residence. It is approximately at-grade with Palomar Park to the south. Wood fencing topped by razor wire surrounds the rear yard of the property. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 2/12/97 Zoning and Land Use Zone Land Use Site North South East West R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Palomar Park Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Provosal The current proposal is for a variance authorizing lot coverage of 47% within the R-1 zone; that is, 2,704 sq.ft. for the existing single family home, patio and plant house and 808 sq.ft. of shade cloth structure, on a 7,475 sq.ft. lot. An overhead shade cloth is already in place, attached to structures, supporting poles, and property line fencing. It is utilized in conjunction with a home occupation in which the applicant raises and sells orchids (the applicant notes that approximately 75 % of the orchids grown are for private use, and 25 % are for the business). The structure was observed during a visit to the residence in April by City Code Enforcement staff responding to neighborhood complaints about this and other issues related to the home occupation. This prompted the subsequent application for a variance. Previous Plarming Commission Hearing The original request for the shade cloth structure variance included encroachment into required sideyard setbacks, and total lot coverage of approximately 61 % (the R-1 zone limits lot coverage to 40%). At its September 11, 1996 meeting, the Plarming Commission voted 3-2 (Tuchscher and Ray absent) to deny the requested variances for the shade cloth structure. Although it members concurred that the structure was not highly visible from outside the boundaries of the property, the attachment to side property line fencing coupled with the large area covered was seen by some as excessive and not meriting of a hardship finding. Much of the discussion at the previous meeting also centered around the applicant's home business which involves the orchids and which has in the past been the subject of complaints by at least one neighbor. Per Section 19.14.11 0 of the Zoning Code, when an application is denied by the Planning Commission by less than four votes, the applicant has the right to a rehearing by the Planning Commission or an appeal to the City Council without payment of additional fees. After the Planning Commission hearing, staff met with the applicant to discuss this matter; she ultimately determined that she would revise the request and take it back to the Planning Commission for rehearing. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 2/12/97 ANALYSIS The Uniform Building Code defines a building as "any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy". The shade structure clearly qualifies under this definition and is thus subject to the zoning code regulations regarding setbacks and lot coverage. The shade structure is apparently necessary to shelter the orchids, and the applicant's contention is that she will be unable to continue to raise the orchids without some means of protecting the plants from the sun. Staff initially suggested some type of low shelter (under 4 ft) that would not be subject to setback or coverage regulations. However, the applicant desires ready access to the plants and contends that any type of low cover would make access too difficult. Staff originally recommended denial of the requests due to the extent to which the cover was utilized. Although there did not appear to be an alternative to the cover for the purpose of maintaining ease of accessibility and the current extent of planting, this was not seen as a hardship in the sense required for approval of a variance. It has been noted previously that the structure is not highly visible from outside of the property and provides little, if any, obstruction to light and air, the primary issue to which the lot coverage regulations were written. Further, the applicant is now proposing to remove the cover from the sideyard areas and to decrease the oyerall coverage area as well. In view of these reductions, staff believes that the structure would not violate the intent of the applicable regulations; by reducing the size of the structure and pulling it away from property lines, potential impact upon other persons or properties is minimized if not entirely eliminated. The use (gardening) for which the structure is intended is clearly an accepted accessory use to a residential structure, and the particular type of plants grown are unique with respect to their needs. CONCLUSION The applicant preyiously provided a petition signed by certain neighbors in support of the request, which is attached as are additional letters of support which have since been received. At the previous hearing, two neighbors spoke against the proposal; objections raised dealt primarily with the home business operation rather than the cover specifically. One of these neighbors has since submitted a letter detailing issues of concern with the proposal. Staff believes that the impact of the structure as currently proposed would be minimal, if any, and that the mesh covering is unique in its design by allowing very limited loss of light and air. Therefore, staff recommends approyal of the current request, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Page 4, Item ----L- Meeting Date 2/12/97 Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Locator/Plans 3. Planning Commission Minutes, 9/11/96 4. Public input 5. Disclosure Statement (m: \home\planning\patty\zav9613 . rep) ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-13M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXCESS LOT COVERAGE FOR A CLOTH SHADE COVER AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R- 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHEREAS, a duly yerified variance application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 18 1996 by Eugenia Hammond; and WHEREAS, said application requests approval to exceed allowable lot coverage and encroach into required side and rear yard setbacks for a shade cloth structure at the single family home located at 1341 Park Drive, within the R-l zone; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposal is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said 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 SOO 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 September II, 1996 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 Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny the request, and in accordance with CVMC Section 19.14.110 the applicant requested a rehearing by the Plarming Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a new hearing on said 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 SOO 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 February 12, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue. before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: The above-described application for a variance is hereby denied based upon the following findings and determinations: I. Findings. 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits. A hardship exists in utilizing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone, which limits lot coverage such that the owner could not continue raising orchids, which require shelter and shade. Further, the proposed shade cloth cover is unique in design by creating only a very limited loss of light and air, which is the primary issue to which the lot coverage regulations were written. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The applicant has indicated that only a limited number of the orchids raised are for commercial purposes; therefore, the approval of this variance would serve to accommodate personal gardening activities which are consistent with the residential use of the property and which constitute eIljoyment of activities and rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district. 3. That the authorizing of this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and would materially impair the public interest. k areas and has limited visibility from outside the boundaries of the property. The cover will be removed from setback areas and has limited visibility from outside the boundaries of the property. The approval of this variance would therefore not represent a substantial detriment to adjacent property and would not materially impair the public interest. 4. That the granting of this variance would adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The granting of this variance would not affect the General Plan or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. II. Conditional Grant of Approval; Conditions A. The permanent shade cloth structure and accompanying lot coverage to a maximum of 47% shall be herein authorized subject to the total square footage and location depicted in the site plan attached as Exhibit "A". B. This variance is hereby granted only for the use of a mesh shade cloth cover, a photocopy of the material for which has been included herewith as Exhibit "B", This variance shall not apply to any other materials or structures. c. This variance shall not be construed as authorizing coverage and/or shelter for commercially-grown plants. D. The applicant shall call the Planning Department for a survey to verify compliance with the approved plan. Said survey shall take place within 30 days of the date of approval. E. This resolution shall not be effective until it is recorded against the property known as 1341 Park Drive. This variance shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. III. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of Pebroary, 1997, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Prank Tarantino, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary i I I i. ~ ,) r;> .-7 , I - I 't I~ I t I ,\' I ~-; I ~ 7'1 \ i \ 1_ ,"'-../ '. ......") ~) I::: ~ I ! -I.. I : ' ~ ~I I '( Ii. I 'l.. FVr>C' -e I I! ?'I->'-J',-'" 7-?'-7-- y., x--)'.-?'--;,-,>,-x~~,>- >-~ ~ .L - -- - - - - --I -I/'='!~hl- _ _1__ <.. +> IT rr . ,.. ., i C IP5!I' JAN 2 7 1~97 1I111 ,,/,! / ,--. ,.,./ -' , II " - '- 'I!)) ~ ----.J....... !~.l..:l! ;-orr.... -'r. ___ 1-' ______.. / / / -r' , / -t I / ( 1", I + r ~ (+ r I -+- I + ( 1 ~' f. /" " -( I I.. "'- 1,< I, ,". " , ~.-" ~-'7 I I.. ~ 1(L-7'~ ~, , i... ! < I I I + 7'" - ,~. . - - - - - -- EXHIBIT "A" J Hot) S e.- (~~";;1. 5!i) - I -:.o:j I( , ~... vi c <7- i- ~ I "- -I.. I "f.. I 'f-" I A. I f... ~:;:) '/j d "" fJ!(.T,O (3~'C #) ~. ~~ L- 3;)',5' :;)- - ','I)^', "".~. >':,\;'V 1\\', l' ,,'. '''')/\./'~-\' " " '. / \ \,' ) v:f > '\ )'. ,.'>',- " -". \. "', //~ ..~. "\ S' ,/ .t/\\ '\ ::;,o.~, "", , ... /' .' '-".......c. :/";"';''''\C~,",,;''' ,.,-{ \ " ,/, ,- -:~ / \ ;bl...... '.'W!'c;..., \ " ' /j / '\..'-, ,.>\ ' " "- ,x' .> ,// .,._..' ._,:. .\.' ~_~: . '" ,......;.t.."' . '.: . " /: I -,'.....-' \.', Y \: .''', ,'" ,,-.- . '111' , /' /. fl/4/r/7 tlI7V~~ Z6'T',s7 i.. '" f. -{, f... . \~ .L L .. '.. '. v.. I...: ' : t(.... ~ ", ......,_.w... ,'__ _.",., _,' ",_. ___. .~+..-._____..,. . U"_._._-,--"."_ __... .__., _n___ "_, --. -"""" " . I \ I ! I ........... > - . ~"..~..--- EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHMENT 2 LOCATOR/PLANS \ / ~------ ------------------------------//---- ----- ~- /------/-/;;; ----- (------- \ ________/ f'''''-O~~ -----'/-- \ , , \ -- , \ \ \ ------'--'-------- \ /--\,"" ~-/ \\ '\ \ y,,_J- \ \ " - \, \ ~/-~--\\ \ \ \) \ -'~ \ , \ \ ~-- , , \ \ y_-J-/ 1\ ~,~ \___~/ __t>,..?->(..--~~\\~~ ~"I)/ ' y --\ \ ~/ \ i---' )-- ------ ,.-J------ / " ..---- / -->" \"",. ----- / / // / / / / _/ ,-......~- , , \ --\ ..---\ \ I ~ _----:: -- . PARK ---------------------/ \ PROJECT ' LOCATION \ /~ --~ \ -~\ \ ..._-... ~- 0- ~. ~ 'b- o ":)Q / // .~ { L /\ I ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) PROJECT Eugenia Hammond APPliCANT: PROJECT DESCRlI'IlON: VARIANCE PROJECT 1341 Park DrIve ADDRESS: SCALE: No Scale I FILE NUMBER: ZAV-96-13 Request: To exceed Jot coverage and encroach into the required side and rearyard setback areas for garden netting utilized in conjunctian with home occupation. , NORTH , ~ ~I e-I I >\ I ~ I ^' I i" 1-.. I I Z J /;- ~ :--) fT I.. ~ ..! '11 "I:- 7' "'-----"7 i" < _ 1 ""I I( ^- \. c o i...:;:; "- 'I.. ---- // +7' / 'f-t / -t / 1- . I r. I +,' r ( + I + I + r 1 ~ I f ~ "- -( ./.. "- "'- , - ~ J I , I i, ~ii I I r;; .-7 I - I "" I~ I t 1-:\ I ~C~ I '" 11 i \ I -0 - , " -..:-) P11::: ~ I · -( I : ~ t · l-- I '( I I I '{ F.",.y"-e I ! ;<-)<-1<-"- 7'- )<. )'-. ;<. x ;t-.~-)'-->< x :><.~ ~~ci~-?:,"" >- >..-.><. +-..1 J - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ (9f._D~~\ _ _ _1__ (, (p51 . il . ;> ~ ~ 1_'" ,.' ' JAI/? 7/0Q7 liU ,:/'. . I '... '" .5 ~ !f,I,': - _______rL/' l -:.:-' ! ;-C1 ~ r..... -,r. _____ .~ Ho() 5 e- (~~";;1. 5'i") ~;J .. ~........, ---~-- > - . I'i d 'CC fA. T,C) (3~~ sTy "I V L )<.. "h i:. (.. / ]0',5' :;). y:-."" "< ',,\," 'V l' '". .J,\'. "'~ /~>>,>,<~ \,' / - . \ 0 rg 1,0 )I' ," . J, ~, / :: ?~)\i.sJd.~G~,'1~ "~I J " " '>\;. "'---;:1' " ". ,~ ';., "i./. /',/ p/lf/nT tlQ,,~e '2.6 '?' .$7 " ~'~ \ ~_\ . - . ,. ATI'ACHMENT 3 MINUTES, 9/11/96 PC MEETING Excerpt from 9/11/96 Planning Commission Minutes ITEM I: PUBLIC HEARING; VARIANCE ZAV-96-13; REQUEST TO EXCEED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE CLOTH STRUCTURE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOME ORCHID GROWING AND SALES OPERATION AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, WITHIN THE R-I (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE - Eugenia Hammond (Continued from 8-14-96 meeting) Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, using overheads to show the area, coverage of lot, petitioners indicating support, the adjoining park, razor wire at the top of the fence with shade cloth, and an accessory structure in the back. Ms. Nevins stated it did not obstruct views or block light; however, staff had difficulty in making the required fmding that there was a hardship peculiar to the property, and as a result has recommended denial. Commissioner Thomas asked if the razor wire was legal. Ms. Nevins replied that it was; the City did not have any regulations that would preclude razor wire. The only regulation spoke to the fence height. Commissioner Salas had noted in the staff report that one of the complaints was that there was a 4x6 sign in front of the yard. She asked if that had been removed. Ms. Nevins stated the sign was on the front of the building, but it had been removed. The original complaint spoke to the sign and to supplies in the driveway. Those had been resolved. This application was not part of the complaint that was issued. (Commissioner Davis arrived at this time - 7:20 p.m.) Commissioner Salas confinned that this was brought to staff's attention as a result of complaints from the neighbors. She asked if the petition reflected who had done the complaining. Ms. Nevins stated it did not. She noted that at one time Code Enforcement complaints were confidential. She was not sure if that was still the case. Ms. Nevins had not received any contact from the residents adjacent to the applicant or the one across the street; she did not know if they were opposed. Commissioner Willett asked if staff had an overview to show how much coverage was actually allowed. It was hard for the public to visualize what the Code allowed and how much of an overlay would be on it. Ms. Nevins did not have anything to show what was pennitted and what was being requested. The existing house was close to maximizing the lot coverage, within 35 feet. Commissioner Willett suggested that in the future staff include an overlay showing what the Code allowed so it could be envisioned. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Genie Hammond, 1341 Park Drive, CV, the applicant, stated that the sign was 4 x 6 inches, not feet. She said the shade structure was already in place and used in conjunction with a home occupation business of raising orchids, plants and flowers. She had had a business license since March 1989. Approximately 80% of the orchids were her own plants. Ms. Hammond said she imported endangered species from all over the world, and traded with other orchid growers in endangered species, trying to keep as many alive as possible, as well as doing propagation work in them. She said a complaint had been filed by a neighbor regarding an inoperable car and a commercial truck which had been parked in the driveway and regarding the barbed wire. The complaint was not regarding the shade cloth. A Code Enforcement Officer had come to her house to discuss the car. She had subsequently given the car and the truck to the crime victims fund. She had no intention of parking there all the time, and she had not been approached by the neighbor regarding it. Ms. Hammond stated that the following day the Code Enforcement Officer and a woman had gone back to her home, asking to see the orchids. It was at that time the officer saw the shade cloth, which was not visible from the street. The officer had filed the complaint, not a neighbor. Ms. Hammond had submitted a petition which had been signed by 28 neighbors. Ms. Hammond noted that Mr. Griffin had told her that an infonnal administrative hearing would be held, and that if only one or two neighbors complained, he would be inclined to grant the motion for zone variance. Ms. Nevins had then contacted her on July 30 setting a date for the fonnal hearing. The Fire Marshal had approved the shade cloth; it helped make her home energy efficient; the solid wood fence is 4-112 ft. high with a wood trellis on it and shade cloth anchored against the trellis. The only part which could be seen from the street was the 1-112 ft. strip against the trellis. The gate across Palomar Park is gated off 24 hours a day. To see the park, visitors had to park beside her house as well as in front of the neighbors to the west. Ms. Hammond said they get graffiti, trash thrown in their yard, and food thrown at their houses as well as human waste. Commissioner Willett confinned that a Code Officer had come to her Ms. Hammond's house to look at the orchids, and asked if during that time he or she advised Ms. Hammond of the Code violation, or did they leave and she found out about it later. Ms. Hammond stated the officer came about the complaint about the vehicle, and they discussed the orchids. He had asked if she had a business license and if it was current. Ms. Hammond had answered affmnatively. The next day, he came back with a woman he said was a volunteer. The volunteer never spoke. Ms. Hammond took them through her house into the back yard. They discussed the orchid plants; they looked at some of the flowers in bloom, and that was when he noticed the shade cloth. The first day he had asked her to get in touch with Nonn Ostapinski. -4- Chair Tarantino stated the second day the Code Enforcement Officer came to see the orchids and the shade cloth, not on official business. Ms. Hammond answered negatively. Commissioner Willett asked if after that visit, Ms. Hammond had received another visit saying she was in violation? Ms. Hammond conflnned. Commissioner Davis asked if her house was the original floor plan? Ms. Hanunond stated the front had been remodeled and brought out a total of 225 sq. ft. It still maintained the 15 ft. setback from the street area. Commissioner Salas noted that Ms. Hanunond had started her collection 40 years ago, but the homes were not 40 years old. Ms. Hanunond said her home was 27 years old, and she was one of the original owners. She had moved the collection she had already acquired up until that time. Commissioner Willett stated he had visited the property that morning and noticed a car wrecker there tied to a car which looked like it had been there several days. He asked if it was hers. Ms. Hanunond answered negatively. Commissioner Willett had noticed there was no signage behind her house infonning park users that it was private property. Ms. Hanunond said that had been gated off a few years before because of the dumping problem--refrigerators, mattresses, household furniture--and driving down the lawn area. Commissioner Willett questioned Ms. Hammond as to the minimum area she would need to satisfactorily grow her orchids with shade cloth. Ms. Hammond stated that 113 of it was rolled up and down, depending on the weather. She had left it out because of the impending hearing. Lee Kenaston, 3168 Fair Oaks Drive, Spring Valley 91978, said she and Genie had become very good friends because of the orchid society. Ms. Hammond is recognized as one of the foremost growers in the San Diego Orchid Society and had contributed a great deal to the community in setting up orchid exhibits, including the San Diego Zoo. She had provided a very clean, very environmentally sound location for her orchid collection, which includes many exotic species that take very special conditions for growth. She felt Ms. Hanunond had a great deal to be proud of in the property she had maintained there for many years. Margot Elder, 1340 Park Dr., CV, stated she lived across the street from the applicant. She probably was the only one who saw the shade cloth. She and her husband had no problem with it. It was neatly done and nicely tucked away. Corwin Bell, 1320 Park Dr., CV, across the street from the applicant, spoke for the Wynns who lived adjacent and abutting the property of the applicant. The Wynns and Mr. Bell were -5- opposed to the shade cloth attached to the fence and the razor wire across the top, security lights, etc. It was very unsightly to the Wynns. The Bells also opposed it because the setback was designed to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. The shade cloth could be supported by posts within the setback areas. He felt that having the shade cloth over the entire back yard facilitated turning a residence into a retail outlet for orchids. When people come to purchase orchids, the street was blocked with cars. The Hanunonds park their personal automobiles on the street. At times, pallet loads of fertilizer and perhaps pesticides were in the driveway. He and the Wynns opposed the project. Commissioner Davis asked if any of the traffic could be attributed to the park. Mr. Bell said he felt people who utilized the park may like to park there but could not because of people purchasing orchids. He had witnessed an 18-wheel semi truck trying to turn around in the cul- de-sac when it was making deliveries to Mrs. Hammond. They had objected to the truck, because the truck hung out over the sidewalk. They had not brought it up to Mrs. Hammond, because in the past they had gotten no favorable response. Marla Bell, 1320 Park Dr., CV, stated she was opposed to the fence. Ms. Hammond had ignored most of the conditions of her home occupation pennit. It was an eyesore. There is a commercial business going on there. When Mrs. Bell was home during the summer, the 18- wheeler semi-truck would deliver products most Fridays at 10:00. It would back down her cul- de-sac. All the cars would have to clear the area so deliveries could be made. There were usually pallets of things left out in the driveway. The garage was floor-to-ceiling wall-to-wall with boxes. Cars were unable to park in her driveway. Ms. Hammond had made a statement that her sign was 4" x 4". Ms. Bell stated it was a real estate sign advertising her business. Ms. Bell said a lot of traffic was created and people coming and going. This type of business lowers property value and lengthens the marketability of homes in the area. She thought it was time to keep it a residential area and not have a business there. The business may have started out as a small business, but has turned into more. Their complaints had been related to the business. Ms. Bell gave the Planning Commissioners some pictures of Ms. Hanunond's home. Commissioner Salas clarified that there were 18-wheelers going there on a regular basis. Ms. Bell stated they were there every Friday at 10:00. Answering Commissioner Salas, Ms. Bell said that during the summer every Friday there were deliveries at 10:00. She now works on Fridays, so she didn't know if it was still happening. Commissioner Salas asked if staff had received any complaint about 18-wheelers being on the street. Ms. Bell said they probably had not. You try to live in hannony and not make complaints. Commissioner Salas confmned that the truck and the car had been removed from the driveway. Ms. Bell stated they had. -6- Hazel Wynn, 1337 Park Dr., CV, who lives next door to Ms. Hanunond, said she was mainly concerned with traffic. The cars, vans, and trucks outside her house would not be going to the park, because she had walked around and there was no traffic by the park at that time. The razor wire was 5' to 6' above Ms. Wynn's fence and very ugly. Therese Petermichel, 1300 Park Dr., CV, said that there was a neighbor across the street from Ms. Hammond who had a business hauling trucks. If he could have a business of that nature, she did not know why Ms. Hammond could not have a business raising flowers. There was a lot of traffic on the street; a lot of kids speed through going to the park. Ms. Hanunond was trying to get the cars fixed for her children; the truck was to haul her flowers to the different shows. Her truck was backed in and not hanging over. She supported the applicant. Melonie Hammond, 1431 Park Dr., CV, said the razor wire is legal. Police had been out because of complaints. The Police had recommended they put up the razor wire and the security lights because they had been burglarized twice. People stole orchids. The cars were mostly not theirs; the owners of the cars and trucks liked to park on their side of the street. The Hammonds had an overnight visitor who had parked in front of the Bells' house because of the street light. The Bells had called and harassed Ms. Hammond four times about moving the truck. The traffic problems were not created by the Hanunonds. There may be one or two people during the weekend, and they could park in the public parking by the park. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Willett, regarding the car that was on the end of a tow vehicle, said he was not aware there was a business across the street that was repairing cars. Commissioner Salas felt that the comparison being made was what type of business was being raised in the neighborhood. She felt a business of growing flowers was very much different from manufacturing a product. From her previous experience of living in a neighborhood where miniature roses were being raised, it was a great source of pride to their neighborhood and a place of education for children. Commissioner Salas had not seen evidence there was really an abuse of the business. She stated she would have to go against staff's recommendation and allow the family to continue their business. Commissioner Thomas, regarding compliance of the home occupation pennit, asked staff to comment. Ms. Nevins stated that there was a questionnaire which accompanied an application for a home-based business license. Regarding aesthetics, Commissioner Thomas asked if the business had changed the character of the house. Ms. Nevins stated there was a question as to whether it would change the residential character of the property. Mr. Thomas felt the razor wire was there because of the business. If the orchids were not there, the razor wire would not be required. -7- Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that Mrs. Hammond stated that Mr. Griffin had indicated that a variance of this type is nonnally handled at staff level. However, if staff, after reviewing the application is unable to make the findings, it is automatically forwarded to the Planning COtnmission for a public hearing. He noted the home occupation had been pennitted. The applicant had been notified of some potential violations of that home occupation pennit, putting them on notice that they are not allowed to have customers coming to the property. If that was still occurring, that was a violation of the home occupation pennit. The item before the Planning Commission was dealing with lot coverage. They were two different issues. The Planning Commission was not dealing with the home occupation pennit at that time. If the violations were still occurring, the residents concerned should file again with Zoning Enforcement. Staff would make sure they were enforced, or the applicant has a right to appeal that to this body. He asked the Planning Commission to concentrate on the issue of the variance and the lot coverage. Commissioner Davis thought the wire was there because they back up to the park, not necessarily because there were orchids there. She asked for clarification of the size of the lot. Mr. Lee said it was a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. Code allows 40% lot coverage. The house, patio, and an accessory building appeared to approach the 40% maximum of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Almost any coverage in the rear yard would likely exceed the 40%. The Code classifies the shade cloth as a structure. The question was whether the Commission was comfortable making fmdings to approve this type of coverage in the rear. Commissioner Davis questioned the floor area ratio. Mr. Lee explained that the floor area ratio dealt with the amount of total coverage of the lot. Commissioner Davis said the netting was an up and down thing, not pennanent. Commissioner Salas said the cover was there but, depending on the sun and the time of the year, it may be rolled back and forth, so sometimes it was okay and sometimes it was not okay. She had a hard time reconciling that the netting that could be moved back and forth could be defined as a structure unless it was the points where they were attached. Mr. Lee responded that when the enforcement officer was there, the netting was up and constituted a structure by Code and exceeded the lot coverage. If in the Planning Commission's judgment it was not the same as a true structure and had no impact on the neighborhood, the Commission may be able to make findings that staff was unable to make. Assistant Planner Nevins stated that it was her understanding that the temporary winter netting was what was moved up and down. The remainder was the more pennanent netting. Chair Tarantino clarified that if the temporary winter netting was removed, Mrs. Hammond would be in compliance. Ms. Nevins stated that given the square footage she had, her allowable square footage at 40% lot coverage, the maximum, would be rougWy 3,000 sq. ft. In addition -s- to that, she is allowed a 300 sq. ft. open patio. The existing house, including the patio, is over 2,800 sq. ft. Currently, there is a total of over 3,200 sq. ft. coverage. The maximum is 3,300 sq. ft. Ms. Nevins showed what would have to be taken down to be in compliance. Commissioner Willett felt that if this was approved, it would set a precedent for other applicants requesting the same thing. He supported the home business and sympathized with the applicant, but, when he had viewed it that morning, it appeared that the whole back area was covered. Based on staff's position and based on the Code and enforcement of Code throughout the City, he agreed with staff's conclusion. Commissioner Davis had a problem looking at netting as being a pennanent structure. Mr. Lee agreed that it was a difficult situation. If it was reversed and someone wanted to put this in their front yard and carry it out to the sidewalk, everyone on the block would be complaining to the City. It was a similar situation and a judgment call. This happened to be in the back yard, not as visible other than the fact that it is attached to the fence. Commissioner Salas felt that one of the basic issues was whether or not this business changed the residential character of the neighborhood. From everything she had heard and seen from visiting the property, she did not see that it changed the residential character of the neighborhood. This was a unique type of business that actually added value to the community. She thought the Codes were there for a reason, but the Commissioners had to be practical about it and be able to make concessions when it was possible to make them. She disagreed with Commissioner Willett. Commissioner Davis asked if anyone had filed a concern about the property two doors to the east of the applicant, where there was a building at the back exceeding the lot line. Mr. Lee replied that he had not seen it. Accessory structures could be constructed at a zero set-back in the rear, provided they are in the rear 70%. MS (WilIett/Tarantino) to support staff's recommendation denying the request, based on the data furnished by staff. Chair Tarantino stated that he concurred with Commissioner Willett that the variance and Codes were there for a reason; he was concerned about the precedent which was being set, and about the fact that it exceeded the lot line. Those rules were put there for protection of the neighbors and homeowners. He supported the applicant's business; it sounded as if it had gotten larger than originally intended and that they had outgrown the area. Commissioner Davis spoke against the motion; she felt this was the type of home business that did not have a major negative impact on the neighborhood. She felt the way of the future and the present has been cottage industry and it was something they should support. It was a way -9- people could make a living and keep things going without going on welfare and without having to go on the public dole, and she encouraged people to do more of it. She understood that the Wynns felt that from their back yard that there was not a very positive view of the netting. They were the ones most affected. She suggested that the Wynns plant something taller so they would not be affected by it at all. She felt the home business was a positive thing and not a negative in the neighborhood. She supported the variance. VOTE: 3-2 (Davis and Salas voted no) (Ray and Tuchscher absent). Attorney Googins clarified that under applicable Code provisions, if a variance is denied by a vote of less than 4 votes, as in this instance, the applicant could choose to appeal the Planning Commission's decision at the next Planning Commission hearing or, at the applicant's option, they could appeal the matter to the City Council. They could work with Planning staff to process that through the applicable procedures. Chair Tarantino infonned Mrs. Hammond that she had the option of appealing to the Planning Commission again when more members are present, or she could go directly to the City Council. Attorney Googins noted that the result of the vote was a denial; however, a resolution was not adopted. The effect of it was a denial for inaction on the matter. -10- ATI'ACHMENT 4 PUBLIC INPUT / SUPPORT OF APPLICATION ,..-,/ 1868 High Valley RjLi))@ Poway, CA 92064 f;1/1@iff!} January 25, 1997 , ' f9 IS' Patty Nevins Planning Board 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, 91910 Dear Ms Nevins, I am writing out of concern for Genie Hammond, in regard to the Planning Board's case No. ZAZAV-96-13. When I came to live in this region some thirteen years ago, I visited all the local orchid growers, wanting to continue developing my collection. Genie Hammond struck me as by far the most accomplished, and she had the further advantage of growing her plants with the least alteration of the available conditions. It is, however, impossible to use all the available light! That is why the shade cloth is absolutely indispensable, but of course it cannot be opaque. To consider it a kind of ceiling, and thus in violation of building codes, seems to me a misunderstanding and an injustice. It is merely a cloth net, excluding some of the sunlight. Ms Hammond is in fact an ornament to your community, since she is not only a distinguished grower but a well known authority. She serves as consultant to the Quail Botanical Gardens, the wild Animal Park and the Zoo, often lending them plants for special exhibitions. These organizations are all concerned with the preservation of endangered species, and Ms Hammond gives freely of her expertise to further their efforts. She frequently gives lectures to horticultural societies. I hope you will take these facts into consideration in evaluating this situation. With my thanks for your attention. Sincerely yours, ~~..c:. (i:j Patricia Terry ~,._.-~-------_.~.__..- ._-------- JRW III 6005 WENRICH DRIVE . SAN DIEGO, CAliFORNIA 92120 18 JanJfary 1997 Ref.: G. Hammond Kate Sessions Home Depot TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Genie Hammond is a Past President of the San Diego County Orchid Society and-a representative to the American;Orchid Society. She has been involved in setting policy for the endangered orchid Species in San Diego County. Over the years Genie has become a recognized grower, serving the community on the introduction of orchid species to the San Diego Zoo. She was a leader and an authority on orchid species, long before the cities of San Diego County became involved with the Multiple Species conservation project. (There are more than 20 orchid species in the canyons around San Diego County.) Knowledgeable and dedicated naturalists are a great resource to any community, and they do not ask for much from community leaders, as we have learned from Kate Sessions and her legacy of plants she studies and taught others to appreciate. What would San Diego be without the concessions the leaders gave her, and what a long- term effect her few plants have had on "everyone in this region. In order to grow and therefore study plants~ it is necessary to have certain controls over extreme conditions. In this latitude the most effective control is shade cloth. Home Depot sells several grades of shade cloth~ precisely sold for mounting in the back yard for home gardening...... Genie Hammond is not only using her ya~d for growing and enjoying plants, but she regularly shares her knowledge with the many societies that belong to the San Diego Botanical Garden Foundation in Balboa Park. Thank you for considering these ideas in your deliberations. R. Walters III rustee, Quail Botanical Gardens ~@~I.1'W@ i :JC;hn ~uJfC/:s ,'S CLho a - -~ .. k fCtST f/!('sldeo7-- of- ~ 'SOh Ol'eye- CD, On:.hli Sx../ely ~ -+tli4nJ ~r c,.fl -fh~ k'b,..!cI- Wl'Je.. Con'Jer'vvJ-l'tn.-Ii!/'an<-e be.. / - j.-., 1''''-1' SOn w: {-I.I the Sc,,,, 'Di.0"" .., juG o I.{) 11 ~.- c,.f C'- ([~C'rn fYJ ...;!('C l ~~.JJ +-- .J 'R'?'- h'''- fe" Crcl)/CI:- c('()~,d ~1;"'-f1-L Chula Vista Planning Department cIof Ms. Patricia Nevins 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 January 21., 1997 Ref: Case # ZAV-96-13 Dear Members of the Planning Commission We have known Ms. Genie Hammond of Parkview Orchids for over fourteen years. We met through the San Diego Orchid Society where she has served on the Board of Directors and as President of our Society. She has been active in promoting the Orchid Society as one of the foremost groups in San Diego County through her beautiful displays al our shows in Balboa Park and the Shrine Auditorium, at the San Diego Zoo and the Wild Animal Park, and at other floral exhibitions and public events throughout Southern California. Ms. Hammond is widely recognized as an expert in rare species orchids and for her propagation and protection of rare and endangered plants. We have visited her Parkview Orchids and have been greatly impressed by this beautiful and unusual orchid garden, so unobtrusive from the street sides, yet so unexpectedly lovely once inside the private gate to her property. We have found it to be most attractive because of the georgeous flowers themselves, because of the care with which various species of orchids are given proper climatic conditions through the use of shade cloth, the expert grooming of the plants themselves, and the cleanliness of the growing area and grounds. We have always found her to be exceedingly helpful with her advice on the care and culture of orchids and with locating unusual planls. Ms. Hammond is a mosl effective ambassador from the City of Chula Vista to Ihe floral world of Greater San Diego, as is demonstrated by copies of the enclosed articles which have appeared in the San Diego Union. Sincerely, ct-~ ~,-"L4-~'V' $7;itJv1+ 'J,i,-~ ~~ !f~ J~ '.--'- --- ---. -. -- -,-~ ;::r2:;OQO O'.Q()S'l:I"g S:,900 IIOErI:l":II~ ()Q.1It:1j; :IIU'O"O>!;S":E! ...:J<1:7':II c:ra~ 0 ~~.~.i~~~~WJ~~~.~~~=f~aqq~S"~(!~'~~~,;~~'~I~P!~i.:lif~~1~~~ f') -... < 1:7',& E! "'" 1:7' - .... .. . ::'! (t !:i ~. ~ I>> .... 0 ~ (t i' -, "" C III Q. _ '< -... 0 .. ~ !2 ~ i~~~~'~I;.!.;I~I=~ ~1:I!g~Jg.~~~.I!~!~J~~!~~~i~~ili~~1,a ~i!~1 3!~~~~.-S~~! ~~~~q.~-~,~~~~~!~~~~"S~~~ ~~ii;~~~..~3[ ~ ~.,.'... s: 1:r"'C e ~ e: 2, s: It fj I:r" 1f'" =:: g... :II "1::1 I'D 1:7' - -"tI !! "1::1 1'D'"tI ... 00,..". 8. c". _~ 011. ~ _ 0 = I'D 3011 ~su~ n"tl nj:.:( -....n 'C.. p-.....S_.-...tn~",CJ.. 'ji;"CI1It:O_~'" ~0'C~5r:::~"'n...o"" g ~ ~ g :; ~ S' Ie ~:i g =d[~ m ~ .g rJ 3 jU' ~ ~ ~ : ='".0 ij':s. 3 g. 2 ~ s ~ s: ;: q ~ ~ t 2.", ~ ~'< 8: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~On_~ "K...","'o 8~I'D R~a<-.. .. I'DI'D.. I:I"~I'D...<? ~...0~3I'Dm~I'D"tII:r"R it~lf ~ijlil~~t~: ~~a!llif~~!!II!~:~~'lif i!liliilil~i ~._g 5' I:I"S:-~~"'~I:I""'''~ 3 ..s:~...~"s:g... =1:7'na-~_>~ ~n .=' ..~~~. S~ ~CJ~~~ 8..:E3~gI'D~~~5' R~"'~ ~"~=~~f~'~~R~a~~'" 01:1"5: i=",q n 3=='"~ ~=~~oa~..."~~ ~;~~ ~R~-"":IIe~~~"~=~2. -~g"l::l ..~~ ~ 5' 5' a = B.;:i" [ 5 ~ p::I: .. b:: ::: -.g '" - go ~ 0 ;;" ='C I'D ~ 0 ~ ~ .,~. ~ g, s:.; go I'D ~~ -_ ~Q. =5'" g 5' ~~i~q ~-- ~ a"I'D ? 0 OQ '< . ~~.~~ ~~~~-1~1~~~~g~~5!~~~g~~~e E~ 1iii~~ ~~1 ~~5I'D~g-a3~~=~~g<2~ogcgqilqg~g'C~I~=~:II~~~.~,~g~~~ ~R~~3~~~S~ ~=Oa~~CJ~3~~~~.,~D~~g~~i~ !~~_iS~~gR ~~~o3o~Eg~ --~~~~c~ -03~I'D 1~=~~~~~33 ~~~~~So-o~=~ ;::;:~ Ii' ~ 0 C 8 0 Q.;::;: g. ~ fD fD I'll 011 ... "C ..... = = "C"- 0 _ S! S" a '0- _ .~ S.=' ii ~ ~ ~ g E. ;: ~. 2. !!.. cr :E ~~ ~ :I ~ .Q s= ':I ~ ~ ~ ~(II) 5' -:a iU g. :r: g ~ is.. ::. (oS '" _ i5.. - :=. v.. 0 iU~~~~q~~~~ =fDiUQ.5~3I'D gI'DQ.~35'S=g~"a~~" ~~ma3&~~[ri 5'g~~_~~~~=,": ~~!~~~[~ ~3i!3~I'D'CF~3~2.i ~Q.~3g"'~5'~[ -.0 - . "- ~-"' . =0..'n='~~9~I'D".~0'__ 0 0'" OQ~n" fDro ~'.c_.",,,,,. ='".. -'-'.- -Q.'"-' .... =,"-- a~-I'D~"~~"~ ~ ~~Ec~~.." .,()..~=R g~5~w'fD~2~~~~aI'Dci v, fD~O"CR= ~~~~""-OQ<g ~~I'D;;"",s=3~ 3 "'fD-"'O:ll ~~S:~~':IIfD~~g ~=.~~g ~"g~2 aa~~~_fD~2. ~3~ -~~~~0-5'''' ~. fD~ ="SR~ n .... '. I'D -, ... ., n ::;-., ~ _ fD -g ~ ':-"".- I'D ri ~ 3 ~ =-!;; .,"tI -:;:1"1::1 .. ~~ I>> ::::;:;1 n;;' ~ - () Q.. ~ 0'" 1:I"::r Oa ~_ I'D ;r 3 ,,_ I'D ~ ~ a "".011 ~ _. :: I'D' E> go ~ :- 0 .. ~gCJ~e ~~~~ f~qg=~~q ,,"".go~~~o~n a ~~~2=~f~~~ g-;;:!:E:E~ :!.::;'O 3::;..ci;:2.-...... ~E:;"-g ~~"E...g: -e" s:~-q~;. g.So' .=_.c. c.- aRg:ii7-::r~ _!'1 C _ su!" ..." ='1:1'"1;;'" cr- P 1:1" = 5' u. 0 r In ='" I'D ~ - .. , ..::g D> ... I'D" " ~ ....011 g,...I'D 3 qSi:; D: ~ '" _ tit := :E 0 ...... fD~ ~t""!icnif~;a fD-'-O"'~-:E ., OQ 0: 3 = '"1 ~ ~ S=g~~~=,"g :tQ '" :;-= S'a-t: !i1:!3 = _e.cr<:I _. 5. 0 t; &;'!!: 0..... g- o ~ .. 3 '" = ~ :.... ;::J _. !3 gE.='"j17 ='" 3 0 ~ e.r.: 3 5:"g a. ~ ~ !3 !3::l ",-.!2.;J ~o o /I.i := ~::r'b ~ ! g. 1;; ~q Fi!:~ ~s- 0 "tI-g 9 g?g: ~ :=.~g 0....;_ I'D 5'~ ~ s-~. q',s:::II;: Ii -iI'D~~ ~.re:=:a gs:::.g'g.~~ :;:' ~ ~'a-;e E:=~ a ~';~~~3~~ ;: i>> ='"!!; ~ 3 _., ~~Hf~ if &. if!, 011 ~ iiS' ":T' iiq~ g ~.g.~~a> ~~&~i:;=:? ..:;! :=: _. -. = I'D S" N "1::1 ~~..., ~ C> ~~~ ~:~;i ~ g :-0 e. iijOQ =.:J:z OQ R 011 r;: N~ [~ g!X tllU) to 0 ~(Oa~ ~~~ar a:. ::r~ ~oCi>< o ~ adi) ~ 50 :!.S' -'PI !II 9:c-J:<<i ~~35: tn!tl3tt1 o>o~ (; -~ ::T-Q.ru _.m ::I !=l-=S'Q. -"~ (I) 0:0 ""~ :::::rg.. :>,,- ..~C> ...-......:lie. ~ ;;;:i~'~~ ~~r;;::':E= c-=-" n t:.g <<-g,ori= "~5~Si!. -- "'- ~S:&5'a~ ~2.~&5'~ gS::8'l~ r:a. ~ ~ _,!.,'C:= ~:z:[~g.~ ~.. --"CI . ~ ~~I'D:( ore t n g.Jn ~S- ~ ~" ::s (l) "" (l) ~ c: (l) ;;1 IR.~ DI= '1 = Co... ~DI = .. ..= = ~ (1=,'1 .~ ~. N (1) ~.: S: '. . ~. (JQ (JQ (3' ~. (1) "'1. ... en (JQ P' "'1 0- (1) ~ ........ en P"' o S (1) .-... o (1) ~ o .-... . ......... o W: S.: ........ . '<' o I--t') ::!:I o ~ ~ ,---------...----,- (D ~ (D ~ ~ >::i ~":t ~O E;":S ""~ ~(1) i}{I) ;: '" o ~ a s-: 0.. ~~- ~~~ ~ ~ ~ N fr.iJ ....., CJ EB r,-:J -.j -...;;:;, ~i home { Fan orchid fair blooms at Quail Gardens today ~=C.WtL.SCN ~r..dfli:e"~ . 1.o~__~~A:oai ~orcId:~~L. .tmuaQ 6c- VZr. cd i'QCI s__ ~''''''''!!zrooimd icx:as..~~\fG~~ ""'L ForS.Dirco''S~ ~iapwr::it;:'-..:br.Oc-~ orchi4=.~~~Er.x. 1t.s~..-.e"~a.i:Icd; abou(doi:Dci:lr)'\'2r"S."sbd~ fi:Im.moad.(lla'DCTO(~ On=hidsinCbib.\-~.uxt..~ ~O(cbc-Saa~Orcl-Jd Society. -rhe~~~!-~ wu5.nWn&..~w~id;t- Qr.:It!nsc. tbt- nrh.1 ~ to hold it-SO~C'nIC':1iJyC:DOl.Igh [OC::I~ so as 10 ~ rnscnach' xC~Dk lo mo"!ot ;x'Qp..... I think Q~is;)~..:~.oicc:.~ Hammond willbo:::dis9by. ing:u1d~!lini SC'Ic:nlufthe: Qn::hi6$h~ (rOWS 3thI!':" hurne-ba$ed nlll"kry.inc!ud- ing.1[c:wfairly r:u:-evaric:til!'5. !...JoIorc~id soCdYf!'\t'm- berJimWright Jiso.....c:kom~ Ulc:fait..'ioting th',1t ~dozc:ns Jnddozc:ns.o( FilE ~TO lo<::u ordUd enthusiasts tr:)~.- el to Santa 8arba.r:J.~er.' Juiy for the big Santa B4rbara- Orch.id Estates show; and to ws ;\J]geles every October for the Ea.sr ..It'est J~c:hjd Show at the New Otani Hotel. Wright said he Jaokson the fair as -an event th~t will make theli'veS o!orchid pt'O- pIe here even better.~ The same exotic beauty that draWs hU!\dr~dS of visitors to orchid shoW$ to admiTI!' th(' fiow- ~rs' d~Jjcale and brilliatltlycolore-d blooms is also what drtw most of th.e regior(s comm~rci31 gro"'~ to the business:.-\lJsh;1I1:'aJo\~of I1stC'::Id of ~kking:o w, ,-\rig-des.: .11 Die.::oCtJunry on:~id ~nti1.usi.:1s[S Ql1,::~ eirf:LlIDIIoftheirfa"'oritei1F)w~t ~b.the~thisye:Jr. TOday's San Diego Orchid Fair Qu:ill Botanical Gardens in Icin,jUS marks the ~t time::l )jort'aif orcflid celebr:J.[ion has en $L:lg~ in the COUDr-r, bOl.lgh il.lch events have long en3tr.1ditionel~whereinilie ItC'. ~" ~'''''~ay fujr. whi.:h b.:-g;tn st<:.__..., "'Jr.1iflchi1doi ::11. orduu ~" ~ G~i ettit;kC'. 'Nho-~c.ie\'!~s that ~n Som Die.::o''S ?erlect ~ilin;l.te ';:towinllorchids. there should mo~ th:l.n juSt the :U1I1ua} 'in\:" Orchid Sucict}. shuw ior )P!e to ~o !o.~ ..uerticke.a ~mb~:" of the 1 Diego uflt\'Orchid ~i~tY :I.nd M:"of ~tticke :hicis.hopes iweek~nd's hid blitz is a ~ tOW:l.rd that l. ['m hoping it become an :u.a! eVertt. ~ ~!tick", $::Iid C)f iledgUngf:l.ir, <::h ruIls !:rom 111. 10 5}1.m. Iy,withspe. demon~tr:'!. sat noon 3nd ZP.m, t's a good wayrointroduce 'peopletothep!e3i'U~sof lids, as wen as showca.~ some Ie numerous orchid.growing ~tions that exist her~ in !h(> 1~':hesaid. rchid$ocietiesthrou&'nout :hemC.:iliiomia.asw(>jJas , amateur a.nd commercia.} ,,'er'$~e~.h..a\:(>.:'(>,,"11~'e:;.'svp- ',o;e 01 :"'1e ::nr ~Qe:!.. l:JetricKe- ~. etti,kh35li~up'J.n A tiny Onddillm Qrchid blooms in the Parkuiew "ursery. .- ---- -; lady: Gt!l/ic Hammond, OU:ncr oj Parkt'icu: Orchids, :s some nftize /lrJU:crs slle grnu:s in her greenhouse, the- plant that tIuscends pure profit motives. To them, today's event is as much about educating the pub\\t: about orchids as it is about dis- :. playing and selling the. plan[S. It is thisfactorthatmcak~Quail Gardens such an appropria.te site for the fait. said ltammond. sin<::e both the botal1kaJ gardens and the L<lcal orchid community are strongly committed to furthering the conservation of species, Although. today, orchid hybrids number m the tens of thousands, the same is not true of wild oi'Chid species, noted Haml,11ond. Th~ir numbers have drastically declined in recent years, largely because of the dear-t:utting of rain forests, she said. :md many specie! are noW cSlOsidered endlUlgered. ~It'ssomethingthatalotofpeo- pLe don't realize, said Hammond. ..B.ti~ it's important iliat they do. and we're working hard to get the wOfdout." , ~ ! J . ! , 1 . \ j ~ j " ; Sunday, 0, THE SAN DIEGO UNION.TRI8UNE H- ~t 15, 1995 c Pansy.faeed ol'thid: Cltula Vista orchid growti Genit Hammond specializes in Milt;m,'a orchids (above) as well as the rare Diso. specief$'ol.or:hi~ naNv! ft? So~tth Africa. '_ : . &a~~!m JAil 2 1/991 , -____ r I nann applebaum January 20, 1997 architect aia ~u!~~! .J L- ii Vii n~L:/1 --- / ------- , Mr. Ken Lee, Planner City Of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Mr. Lee: I have been a professional in San Diego for twenty nine years. I have established myself as a residential architect being published in San Diego Magazine and San Diego Home & Garden for fourteen years. I have visited an orchid grower in Chula Vista by the name of Genie Hammond. Mrs. Hammond is located at 1341 Park Drive, Chula Vista, 91911 and has been involved with these wonderful plants for forty years. She has been a beacon to the teaching of the subject throughout San Diego County as well as a grower. In fact when Walter Anderson's Nursery has a problem they always telephone Genie. She also has been involved and served on the board of the San Diego Orchid Society for thirty years. With regard to her growing environment I have the following comments. What I see when I visit her is a library of work dealing with living flowers, a lifelong persuit. The structure which shades these important specimans is one of a temporary nature. The shade cloth is attached with staples and all cloth is held together with monofilament. The support posts are sitting above the ground on concrete blocks filled with concrete and held in place with metal post base connectors. The structure itself is screwed or bolted together. I mention the above because it is imperative that she continue her search for more knowledge in this field. This can only be done if her environment is left alone. Certainly a quiet growing area for orchids like hers will harm nobody and is sympathetic with the park it is adjacent to. I strongly encourage you to closely consider this matter and favor grant a variance on behalf of Mrs. Hammond. A-M. 701 kettner boulemrd suite 5 san diego ca 92101 619 595 1867 fa:.. 619 234 8872 ---- C' ..,. ",' ,:;':',:.0)',,:' We the under. 'led neighbors of &.rIi. "'1 - ~d resident of 1341 PArk Dr., do h~t find her bAckYArd shade netting nor her plant business to be an eye sor., a nois. disturbane., nor a traffic proble. for our neighborhood. " , We would appreciate your favorabl. support for her continu- ing the licensed operating of her backyard plant business as she h.. done for the previous 7+ years. .Ql'~:- " " "':Na..,'<. 0."- . _' .. .,:..._...... ;.':. ;"...:" ~..:. .." .'.~ . ':.~"":"',;~:.:;.,....: . . _.<.:.r.. .~ . ",.'" . - - " Addr... ' , . . " .' -. .-"....., . /31("'nz--r-1 . 1J~ I /32.f '?~~ 1326 PlM!~ ORJta / 3~~ 1fiE-121!L~ I_~ -:;~ _ ?0rk... , . ! 3.3 7-- ~rt< H,,) ~ ~ _ /:t~:LGPM df2t, ___--------- ~ ,~' t.,}/~ ,/J33 ~~~_ ______ AJ.~A7,rl ~ _,/32/1. ?~~t. _ _ , -_:~:~~ ~ _ 13{'L. p~ bt... ___ J. : ~ :-_...l~n~ PMIL.h.B.._____ ,-- ~~~- ~ _1J(,~~ if - ~-====== . )tJ - / '3J.. 7 i!t:1 '"P" . a /&x::>..___ JP,.V._ ~t~.~ ~c ,-- : .. - /~-,>y. _~l-_~foJI' _ ~.~__J ~ ,_b.~ %.b!'';~ . ...... :2._n - L~(;~ I"'~,~-t~--------_---- \....~..Oa.. ~ /Nt') \ ~ ~_~ ."\)~,_ _________ :.- ~- ~ p:r.;..et>,("'~ 'J.~j IMkI}II j'V ______ ..~'~Afr~..~ - . - ----- ------- - ---------- - -- ------ ~~----------- '\:r- ------ ','-." :;';~.:~1.',1. .. . . -.- . ------ ------- ------- --------- - ----- --- " ..... . ", ....~- .. . ;~t~>!;;.;~;:j,;;:i::"" ' :- ~j.;;~ ..~~:~~~~..~ " . - 1...5 ' ._-~._-- ::~ /'..~ / ) "-.- . N4..e - 'Addr... JA.~~ /,~J(P --- ~nOJ , - ~J~ ~ 0J>w ~~~D__ OJ . --. ---_.._. . .. - ,~- :i. .: - - ';.." ..: ,~ .. ~ ,..,' .t. ~::} . ' ,,':-..: ~ .... ~ " ..~9 ,,- ., : .,' .~. .' -.-'. . ',' .~...i :", ~~~~ii !ISI:~-K:"..T , . .. ~:,,':.t.~.,.";,:...... ..--- " "733' {53' ..~... ~ "'--' - --- . '. . . .:.' ".:". ~: !:' ." , ...... ":.;/-!"j. '.. ~;. . '" ~ . ~..,.', .i.:1........A!.,.........:....~'::.;::~ '.. ..'.'J:{y. ''';,'', :'l._.~,~-X.i....~~....~.: .);~~'t'~i..a;<~ ...~,..f':...~...:;..~::.':~. ~~". ....;.. . '"4;"':.;";~:~:"~" .~... Si". .t...~......,.,.,..\ '. 1.<..,~..",..1"'~ .....-".~r...~~,:'~.., '..~.' '~~~~'<:~f:';~;S: ~''!. ... ....,... . ~, . .' ;: '-'~ -/4> .:~.':~:;..::~. . . . ..... .'.' .:;....,.. . .:':-''':~ ~-: :;!,~..~.~~~~~tr~.~~v ., .:", REcr::1V~D Planning Commission S.::: t); . ...., -"'- () ......- .,./ '..:J~J5 PLAN/I ""'J " \!"J, b ATT: Patty Nevins Case#ZAV-96-13 Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. ;/. R- .-- ,..... _r._ "/_ '- " , r-.. -. :.. c:.t......: Planning Commission 0:' '-, ~ ...,;,.,,;.. ..i.. -.-,.i':'. ATT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 QL" , . -., ,'\ " . ,"I,..,." ." ~ l - Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. - -1 Sincerely, -J~ ; vI~ ~~'>'.P Planning Commission ATT: Patty Nevins Case #ZAV - 96 - 13 RECt::\VED C'C P 0 9 'SS~ w';"" PLANNING Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, /' ,I ffi / ~/ ~. ~ ~ j!}~~~/~~ Iii 01'" ,1'2; 1"'--' I'M, f) {),., r"1L: ()rI. -.--- R~C!~i\f:=:r:-' Planning Commission C';: D i ../-! -~.. A IT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 Pl4^1"I:i',1 _ . .1\l1\J)I>\ Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. ~i65~ CJJ~ &~ /3/;2 Art D/: Planning Commission A IT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not reaDy seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, if ' ,/0<1) 'J!I/l p/!;.(.'(i. .:.0/2/7:- (1//;'/ /IJI/(j . / . Df::"r-_ "--.1-- P ,-..... -,\;~,!...-J Planning Commission SEPl ') ,,-- -~. i::;::b' A TT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 Pl.ANIVI[VG Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. I~ /8:)( CUll Planning Commission I=? '="" --,.... ~ .- \~_.'- 1 \ I~ --, '. t:.:' ATT: Patty Nevins 0.-.-. ~ -::"';-' .:.. ,', Case#ZAV-96-13 0: ~ {., ;\//'.1 " Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, 'rJtil1i: /3 Of fJiRk Zp/ ~If: . d vul[- 0571 {;;-tJ/fI/-Jf5J J Planning Commission ~F2C€:IV€D ATT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 !:J' . I../UV",,, "'In ''...;, t.'":;) i ,., -, ...... '- ,~:~S Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, /n~ /309 -,oP+L ~ ~ 7/~ M ( 9 If II Edna Holmes 1333 Park Dr Chula Vista, CA 91911 Planning Commission RECEIVED ATT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 <'J:p' v_ 1:] '(,....._ i.:J'::t PLANNING Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. . Sincerely, ~:..?> c..'. /I/[i~r1.-iJ.J ~ J,1YJ. Rf2CE!VEC Planning Commission ~r.') i <"', -I ..(.''- . ,'I~ ATT: Patty Nevins OJ . _A/\JrJiN" Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not really seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. Sincerely, 1'1"1-<1. /fJ<<-V' !~ ~./~ ,3 Q. 0 E- P ~~ 6-1- '5 7-- ^ ~.... 'y/~/C4.. 7/7// / / ./ P....;.. C.mm.,;.. " AIT: Patty Nevins Case # ZA V - 96 - 13 REC~IVED "I' . ~_p 1 ~ .,"1.... h,/ .~:!S PLANNING Sept. 1996 I am writing to support the granting of a zone variance for Eugenia Hammond's backyard plant netting. This netting does not affect my property and as it is not reaDy seen, it has zero impact on the neighborhood. ~~J.~ ATI'ACHMENT 5 PUBLIC INPUT / OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION .> 10~@rnD~LS 1". J~; JAN - 6 1997 VJI January 2, 1997 City Planning Commission City of Chula Vista, California Attn: Ms, Patty Nevins, Project Planner Subject: Request by Mrs. Hammond for a Variance to Exceed Lot Coverage at 1341 Park Drive Case Number: ZA V-96-13 Dear Ms. Nevins: I am writing in opposition to the subject request by Mrs. Hammond for a variance to permit excess lot coverage to accommodate a shade cloth structure for her home occupation within her residence in the R-l zone. My wife and I reside across the street at 1320 Park Drive. We are opposed to any variance which facilitates operation of a business out of character with the residential neighborhood, or which detracts from the value and appearance of the neighborhood. There are four criteria which must be met in order for a variance to be approved, none of which the excess lot coverage meets. Each will be addressed below: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner must exist. - There is no hardship peculiar to this property that was not created by the owner. The shade covering was installed by the owner without required building pennits and without consultation with neighbors affected. It exists to maximize the growing area available for her commercial crop. The profits of her business should not be a consideration in the decision of the Board. The high netting could be replaced by low netting (below the fence line, out of view) at little cost, relative to the revenue Parkview Orchids enjoys as both a wholesale and retail purveyor of orchids. 2. Such a variance must be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by neighbors. - The approval of this variance would not serve to preserve any property rights of this owner enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Instead, it would grant the owner rights not enjoyed by any other resident and would open the door for similar requests from other residential owners who might consider this a precedent. If residential property owners are allowed to completely cover their properties for agricultural, industrial or retail purposes, as Mrs. Hammond has done, they are limited only by their narrow self-interest. I would prefer that they continue to be limited by reasonable application of the rule oflaw. 3. The variance must not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, nor may it materially impair the public interest. . The shade covering lends an industrial appearance to a key corner lot clearly observable from the street, the Wynn family residence, and the popular adjacent park, detracting ITom the neighborhood's residential appearance. It is the sort of covering one might expect to see over vegetables in a rural area, except that the razor wire on top of the structure makes it appear more like a marijuana crop is being protected from poachers. If this variance is allowed, the next applicant may, in fact, be such a grower. Allowing such unsightly enclosures impairs the public interest and lowers adjacent property values, 4. This variance must not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. - If any portion of the general plan of the city or any governmental agency includes a vision statement along the lines of enhancing the image and appearance of the community, then, surely, granting this variance is a small step in the wrong direction. I recently asked a realtor friend how her sales of houses in the Tour de Elegance development were going. Forgetting where I make my own home, she brusquely replied, ''Not well. We've sold only three. After all, what can we expect? They're in Chulajuana!" It is small compromises in zoning and enforcement of building and planning ordinances which erode our community's reputation and defeat our community's plans. As I have indicated, my main opposition is based upon the fact that the shade cloth facilitates the operation of a business out of character with the neighborhood. In the past, not even the fact that huge eighteen wheeled semi-trailers made deliveries of the wholesale orchids, nor the fact that large signs and full color, full page newspaper promotions resulted in large numbers of vehicles crowding the street, was sufficient cause for the city to revoke Parkview Orchids' approval as a home occupation. Neither can her next door neighbor compel Mrs. Hammond to remove the unsightly razor wire, which, strangely, is not in violation of any code. Standing up against this variance seems to be the only effective measure we have left to persuade Mrs. Hammond that Parkview Orchids has grown to the point that it is better suited to be located in an area zoned for retail agribusiness. There are numerous vacant retail structures in Chula Vista ideally suited for just such a business, All of the modifications that Mrs. Hammond has made and to which we have objected have been without pennits. When I have made improvements to my property, I have prepared plans, obtained engineers' approvals, been directed to Cal-OSHA for excavation pennits, purchased special equipment to demonstrate the integrity of gas piping systems, and undergone numerous in-process and completion inspections. On completion the tax assessor has visited to appraise the increase in value, Mrs. Hammond should have been required to do the same. It is not as if she is unaware of the process. Not knowing of my compliance, she once erroneously reported my new wall, barbecue and fire pit as violations. The inspector wasted a trip determining that her complaint was, as he tenned it, "Bogus". At the last public hearing we heard many reasons offered for allowing the variance, all of which lacked merit. Among these was Mrs. Hammond's suggestion that she was saving the rain forest. I will not dignify that with a response (more likely rain forests are being denuded of rare plants to satisfY American demands for prom night corsages - people buying Mrs. Hammond's orchids from florist shops do not do so to reintroduce them to the rain forest). Another was that such a business added to the "chann" of the neighborhood, We in the neighborhood never see the charm. All that is visible is the structure, a ramshackle, non-permitted shed or two, a derelict, permanently installed trailer, security lights, and razor wire. What charm is there in that? Some have noted the many signatures of neighbors on the petition. What do you do when your neighbor comes to your door and presses you to sign a petition on an issue related to a back yard that you never see? One board member suggested that the next door neighbor plant a large bougainvillea plant to hide the razor wire. Why could not Mrs. Hammond plant a large, thorny bougainvillea in lieu of the razor wire? One board member decried the fact that a neighborhood dispute "had come to this" (the hearing). These public hearings are the proper forum for such disputes, given that we have no homeowners' association with codes, covenants and restrictions. The Planning Commission is truly our court of last resort. Sincere!y, q ~ = Bell 1320 Park Drive Chula Vista, CA 91911-453 I ATI'ACHMENT 6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - TI-lI:. ,II (OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ~.A,EMENT You arc required to file a Slatemcnt of Di~clo~ure of certain owner~hip or financial interesls, payments, or campaign contrihutions. on all matters which will require discretionary aClion on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all olher official bodies. The following information mu~1 be disclosed: L Li~t the names of all per~ons having a financial inlcre~t in the property which is Ihe ~uhjecI of lhe applicalion or the contract, e.g., owner, applic.ant, contraclor, sunconlr:Jctor, material supplier. fv..~ n I'C~ '~t"'r> n-./lI'l) ....z.- If any person' idenlified pursuanl \(1 (I) above is a corporal ion or partnership, liS! the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in Ihe corpomlion or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. / If any person' identified pursuanl to (I) above is non-profit organil...tion or a trusI, lisl the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organil...tion or as trustee or beneficiary or truslor of the IruS1. 4, Have you had more Ihan S2S0 worth of business Iransacled with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within Ihe past Iwelve monlhs'! Ycs_ NO-:X!f yes, please indicale person(s): _ / Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before Ihe City in this maner. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Ye.~_ N(~ If ycs, Slale which Councilmember(s): , , , (NOTE- Dale:~~/~ /rj~6 - Auacb additionaJ 1'32 ~:::-~ '#?~~ ~ Signature of contractor/applicant ?~~/7/~ #41n7-'?7'4/ Print or type name of contractor/applicant . P(1'$Ofl is dcfl1lcd as: "AllY uldividUlJl, finn., co.parf1lC1sllip. joi,tJ ~'O&lU'(', associaliofl. social club,fralC'fla/ orgOIlWlliofl, corporation, esratt, trust. rectiver, S)ndiCQ't, this {JJld (JJIY ot.her COUIUY, city and COUIIl')'. city mUflicipality, district, Of other political subdi\'ision, Of {JJ'Y other group Of co,"bulatiOlI aClulg t1f Q WUI. " PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 4 Meeting Date: 02/12/97 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: SUPS-96-02 - Request to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone - Ms, Mercedes Brambila Resolution SUPS-96-02 - Recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Grant a Special Use Permit for an Automobile Body Repair and Detailing Facility to be Located at 2952 Main Street BACKGROUND: The Applicant is requesting permission to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street, The proposal is for a phased project consisting of the construction of 2,492 sq.ft, in the first phase and 1,331 sq. ft. in the second phase. A 696 sq, ft. structure already exists on the parcel. An Initial Study, IS-96-13, was completed on this project which resulted in a negative declaration and addendum (Attachment 2). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Initial Study IS-96-13 and attached Resolution No. SUPS-96-06 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body and detailing shop at 2952 Main Street pursuant to the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution No, (Attachment 1). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1 . The Resource Conservation Commission considered this project on February 26, 1 996 and voted 5 to 0 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-96-13. Minutes are attached as Attachment 3. 2. The Design Review Committee considered and approved the the design application, DRC-96-25, for this Project on December 9, 1996 by a vote of 3 to 0 to 2 (two absent). On February 3, 1997 the Design Review Committee approved the phasing plan for the Project by a vote of 5 to O. The minutes for both meetings are not yet finalized and are not attached. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics: At present, the 19,250 sq.ft. site is occupied by a 696 sq.ft. modular structure and paving for parking, Page # 2, Item: 4 Meeting Date: 02/12/97 2. Zoninq and Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: General Plan R&LI LIM Res. R&LI R&LI R&LI Zoninq IL-P R2-P IL-P IL-P IL-P Current Land Use Truck terminalltrash transfer station Multi-Family Residential AgriculturelStrawberry Fields Multi-Family Residential Multi-Family ResidentiallUsed Car Sales The Zoning Ordinance lists the requested land use as a conditional use in the IL (Limited Industrial) Zone. The Montgomery Specific Plan follows the lead of the Zoning Ordinance for this land use, but encourages new development where possible. In this case, the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 3,800 sq. ft. building which will enhance the area. 3. ProDosal: The Applicant is requesting permission to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop in the IL-P Zone at 2952 Main Street, As approved by the Design Review Committee, several structures are proposed to be constructed over a period of time in two phases, The first phase will add 2,492 sq,ft. to the already existing 696 sq,ft. of a smaller modular structure. The new building will consist of five work bays along the northern property line, except for the northeast corner which is phase two, while the existing modular structure will be used as office space. In the second phase, an additional 1,331 sq.ft. will be constructed and will be used as another work bay and some retail. 4, Analvsis: The proposed project is consistent in character with other land uses along the Main Street corridor, Several other auto-related facilities exist both to the east and west of the subject site and were in existence at the time of annexation of the Montgomery Community in 1985. In addition, the applicant is proposing to substantially upgrade the property by constructing new facilities where none currently exist. This investment is seen as a positive contribution to the redevelopment efforts going on in the Southwest Redevelopment Area, Being a part of the Otay subcommunity, this project is subject to the provisions of the Montgomery Specific Plan, It is supported by the following goal listed in that Plan, specifically: "10, Revitalization of the obsolescent, redundant, or declining areas of the community through a private-sector/public sector partnership, and a balanced program of conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment," Page # 3, Item: 4 Meeting Date: 02/12/97 By working with the Applicant, a business enterprise will be established which redevelops a declining area. By its nature as new construction which will upgrade the site and the general area, this project is revitalizing a declining area of the community and is introducing a light industrial development along the Main Street corridor. This area is also governed by the provision of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, The Project is further supported by the following goals from that Plan: "Creation of physical buffers which ameliorate the adverse effects of changing land uses along interfaces." Given the required buffers vis-a-vis walls and landscaping, this goal is met. "Elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and future Annual Work Programs." At present, the site contains a modular building and is underutilized as a piece of land zoned for limited industrial land uses. The construction of a facility which has received design review approval will work against the spread of blight and deterioration, "Provision for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the Project Area to promote their economic viability," With the approval of this project, the Project site will be enhances and a new business introduced into the area which is superior to that now existing on-site. 5. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, staff has concluded that the Project, as proposed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee and Resource Conservation Commission, should be approved and is therefore recommending that the Planning Commission also forward a recommendation for approval to the Redevelopment Agency. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-96-02 and Draft Agency Resolution No. 2. Locator Map, Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan 3. RCC Minutes of 2/26/96 4. Negative Declaration for IS-96-13 with Disclosure Statement (m:\home\planning\pacbav\9602pc.rptJ ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-96-02 and Draft Agency Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-96-02 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING SHOP AT 2952 MAIN STREET IN THE IL-P ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on December 6, 1995 by Mrs. Mercedes Brambila (Applicant); and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop in the 1L-P Zone at 2952 Main Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said special use permit 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 (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely February 12, 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 Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Negative Declaration issued on lS-96- 13 and the addendum thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the Redevelopment Agency grant Special Use Permit SUPS-96-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for 1S-96-13 and addendum related thereto, and recommends granting of the Special Use Permit for the Project to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Applicant and the Redevelopment Agency. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 12th day of February 1997 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Frank Tarantino, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary pcc-res.pc RESOLUTION NO._ RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR AND DETAILING SHOP AT 2952 MAIN STREET IN THE IL-P ZONE I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 2952 Main Street (APN's 623-172-13 & 23)("Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on December 6, 1995 by Mrs. Mercedes Brambila (Applicant); and C. Project Description; Application for Special Use Pennit WHEREAS, said application requested pennission to constrUct, maintain and operate an automobile body repair and detailing shop in the IL-P Zone at 2952 Main Street; and D, Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on February 12, 1997 and, after taking testimony from those present, closed the public hearing, after which they voted _-_recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No, SUPS-96-02; and E. Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said special use pennit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the (m: \home\planning\martin\pacbay\9602ra.res) Resolution No. Page #2 city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing; and F. Place of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 4, 1997 at 4:00 p,m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, detennine and resolve as follows: II, PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on February 12, 1997 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby approves Special Use Pennit SUPS-96-02 based on the following findings and all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Redevelopment Agency approves the Negative Declaration issued on IS-96-13 and the Addendum related thereto, IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The following fmdings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs the issuance of special use pennits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista is able to make findings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of special use pennits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth the evidentiary basis for approval of the proposed Project: I. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. (m:\home\planning\martin\pacbay\9602ra.res) Resolution No. Page #3 The proposed automobile body repair and detailing shop provides for the repair and upkeep of the automobiles or the residents of the City of Chula Vista and represents a land use consistent with the community, 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The automobile body repair and detailing shop presents a neat, well ordered appearance and will be separated from nearby residents by appropriately designed walls and landscaping and will not result in impacts which would adversely affect humans or surrounding properties, 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed automobile body repair and detailing shop will comply with the applicable conditions, codes and regulations for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The Project Site is located in the Otay subcommunity of the Montgomery Community and implements the applicable goals and policies of that plan introducing a superior development to the area, In addition, the Project implements the goals and policies of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan by allowing a business enterprise into a blighted area. V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Pennit SUPS-96-02 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: A, Operate the Project as submitted to and approved by the Agency, except as modified herein andlor as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the project description. B. Comply with all conditions of approval pursuant to DRC-96-25 or as otherwise modified herein, (m: \home\plannmg\martin \pacbay\9602ra.res) Resolution No. Page #4 C. Comply with ail Project requirements as incorporated into the project description of Initial Study IS-96-13. D. Not allow any inoperable vehicle, as defined by the State of California, to be stored on the Project Site. E. Not allow the sale of any new or used vehicle from the Project Site. F. In conjunction with the issuance of any building pennit under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: 1. Procure a Construction Permit for any work perfonned in the public right- of-way, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: a. Curb, gutter, sidewalk (eight feet wide); b. A.C, paving and base to widen street to forty-one (41) feet half- width; c, Street light; d. Driveway approach (alley type); e. Street light (250W, HPSV); and f. One-half of raised concrete median (installation of the portion of the median can be deferred until the entire median project is accomplished) . 2. Pay sewer, traffic signal and development impact fees. 3, Procure a Grading Pennit, if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended, are not met. 4. Underground all utilities on-site. 5. Dedicate thirteen (13) feet of subject parcel for street right-of-way purposes along the Main Street frontage. G. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. H. Schedule a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting therefrom to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. (m: \home\planning\martin \pacbay\9602ra.res) Resolution No. Page #5 I. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold hannIess City, its Council/Agency members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the CitylAgency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special Use Pennit, (b) Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicants' operation of the facility pennitted hereby. Applicants shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Pennit where indicated below. Applicants' compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Pennit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicants' successors and assigns. J. This pennit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City 1 Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the Pennittee and after the City 1 Agency has given to the Pennittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the CitylAgency, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Pennittee can not, in the nonnal operation of the use pennitted, be expected to economically recover. K. This Special Use Pennit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19,14.260 of the Municipal Code, Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this pennit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. L. Execute the attached Agreement (Attachment "A") indicating that you have read, understood and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. M. Comply with ail applicable Federal, State and local laws, requirements, rules and policies, and obtain and comply with all necessary pennits for the Project from each respective level of government, as applicable, VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein (m: \home\planning\martin \pacbay\9602ra. res) Resolution No. Page #6 stated; and that in the event that anyone or more tenus, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH 1997. Presented by Approved as to fonn by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John M, Kaheny City Attorney (m: \home\planning\martin\pacbay\9602ra. res) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MRS. MERCEDES BRAMBILA OWNER OF 2952 MAIN STREET (APN's 623-172-13 & 23) RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUPS-96-02 Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant has read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. , and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Agency. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall indicate the Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Mrs. Mercedes Brambila Date Attachment: Resolution No. ATTACHMENT 2 Locator Map, Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Pans , ~' I ~ li'jgO ~ \1' I - -;~~- 1~I!tll - - n .<~ m:!!i, 'I" _ _!i~_ iilP'j - - ~,!. - ~~~ mlLij, ~ t~4!<J<J<J r ' I I G) en ca J: A. ~ ?c .:a ~ &.&.. I '-J __L- ~. a..;; I I < ~ < " ; ~ I i _~. ! I~! I !. iL _! :!j il! ~g A! !I~ ~ Ii ;j 'j' I ~Ii Ii hi I .1 I, I~ -. .!' ! hi Ii III hii --------- . - 1- -[ I I J rn ~nOH80LnYA~ =1 ~ t I I i I I I ~ ! ij .---+ --~ i -I --t -1 --r I I I ~ ! 1 ~ t i ! ~Tl ~ II 1 ij ~ ... :i. :c :;; ~ I . , I I I 1 I ~ , . II' () I'L j?'~~ai.:-~rt ~~;=:: .~. !r' ~c-=.- ~ ~, ~::: *~11' ~:~~': . .. ...,I=-:X:;:~: - c<=,E1t-, l . ~ _ ""-r.....l...oIrI':r... ; iii r K I-I I I l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 5' \ I I I II (U'.. -- L.t I I I. · I I I I I 011 ~ ( · I kl ~~ ~~~.~mi ~m,~II1It~HlJ.~ ~ ~ ~ H t t f- g.. ~~.....:c.... ~~tJ. l>o1fhoLJ,...._ "'.... Sf!!lt...Jo.. (II (} ~ .- < . I, !iL~~Wliwuw~~dn!ii = .. ...... --..., "..............,...,..! '41:!! ~ -l '~ I : .!! I 11 ~ ~i , I "<- 'ol'1 .. I r-P I I h-- I l , ~ ! r f i < ~ \~ ~ ;h t" ! tf "' " tr . , J i a ~ < i I r f ~ i """~ ! . r .. i!@ ~8 6 .1 f 'i.>!? l~i:l.l. I-~. . _!_?-'\OI t " I (~ .....-. .",,.,' '" ( I, '- <- . II ~ :>-i; '.1 -7t- ~., ~" "-"'r; ^ ~~ ".J" "'~ t;:>........----, x ,".,', . , , , ~~~ , F"-......'":" i J ,.J- ..ft " -+ ~f! t '. ~ ii-' .~! f' !. ,--_"." ~g t ( t ~'r-------' !-- ... j /' ~ : I)" --"1;-----1 _ _ _ _ _ J 1--1 ] 1 I ._______. ~-.J.l---l i -; ;l\--if--'-~" _ _ _ _ _ ___J j ! I ...J'1 - - _ _J 1_ _ -:.-11 (of.i 2.) ...' -..J Y / I ~ @ ~ J1 }{ j ~ H ... t'lf: t . r. . r ~ f ":$. , " : . J ,I l ! l } , f ........ ..~r-;t i 1-- , I' : - .J n_-I" ' u Jf : I~ _~ I I I~ j-' I"' "' x I . I , I '~I "-1 11 ~ I )1 : i J~. ~l t! @ i ~ t f " v ! f :'" , ", j, I I i . ! ~ ~ ~\ ~ "- {i ~ '; ~ T 1 :Ie j , I , ~ I - J ~ i' I . , t . --' H , II h " ' . " , r.r I -! I ~I , l f · '< . I ~ ~V~ ..' . ,._1 ~': i ! J -, ! 1 il! J " , .' f ~ i I L____ jl~, -1 ~ I ! I . ! ~ , L ----4 ~ ! (fI..,-.,.,.,.!~.,,;,. , . ~ .-----. . -I ~ . .. r " ." .. i . .: ~ i . ..... . I i ....,.;,..,. .""..j..l'''''''.,....:J::.::..:J:J ~'.~ j' i ,-~'" ",..~~~%",~.:.III:~ 1 !~ r ti if ,~ i I ,! h t ! ~ it 'I ~- . h :\! < {D' I ~ } if ~ ~ , f'- ~ -~ .:>- ~ r-!] L ~ t }" i] . Ii ~ I! " I I , ~,i :~1 ~j L___ --- -J ~ i 1 ~ ~ -f-~' f2 ~ ~tN :ii! U '~ ::> N ~ ii I!: - . ~i :~ 0..;. i~ r i -. ;;1; h {I J....__. t < ~ " g --... ~ ~ -- \~d i i.1'~ 1 _.- ~ t Ii. :7 t I ...G .".. .i: Ii 'I i ~: I ~ 1 i- t ~ ~ i" ... It " 1 ~ W q-- I, ~ 'I 'I ~ 'I I, 'I ~ -, I I." .. 1.J':=' 0:::>:;__ : , J.bl ~ t r \' .. ~ ~ ~ -: ~ , I 1;' lli. } " t :! r I, II I, JI. DID: 1 cl ~jl ~ b J I . I i D=t= 8 i ~I ! ,,5 ~ << ~ .,\.ft I' ~f t; , . , 11t . 11=1 . I ! i i I J [ If t , \ , fT ~f [~~~ l p~ -- ,< l--.r- " IT~:-;:' I, " " I \. (I ) I, ~ . -1 , 1....__ __._ L ' -'. "" h v J I - - CD en as .c A. ~' I o..II'!!!~i 1 "" I II 'I i - - -~.,- hi~1 - - . f 8~~ Ilil'I!I! _; I - -, -hi'! - 1-' . ,I! ~ : ~~~ 1.111.1. a 1~"!<a<J<J<J I I I ~~ - ~ ~ - rL _ o !:$- ~ =- -i ~i ~- .. . ~ ~ I I I-----r--T- I J I TTI --~"3)10". OWV AmV. :JU':JV tt:J q I I -'-I ~ I, !f , , , , _oj I --+ --f __l I ---I -1 ----r I ! -i I --J I - -, --1 -t I I 4 ~ 4 c i ., iI -i t ) I:. : ~E t ~ ! i ! iH I : iN" . HHI,IJ .. ~ -. ~ ~ I' ; j; !i!! :f! .~ "il f h. 1 .: it! ( ~! ,t l ,;1;100.. .. -, '''J 1 I I HI ~ o IIj ~ ,-- ~ [ ! . 1 i ~ In =1 "" -- L.J I I I. · I I · I I,ll 1':1; n ~:: ~ ~ ~~ ~:~~ :~::~~~~~~: ~ ~ ~~ Uill-+ ~ - 4 , f . 'III', - ~~~~~~~~~!~U~ -i - .. .. ~ "'...... .. ~ .. @ I Ii -1-- ",;::'_-\.;\L:-:.:i~-. . :.bi g:~if~:~-I- t !";.t j~:.cJ'~~,'R:I_ J . ::;"-:-:- =-:;:-' - :;'~ ::.:-'-'~I' ~~I~:.: - 41 ,'-- 1'--=, -- : - - II ' ".-. . . _~_"'+J:."_T ../ , > ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ > ;: u ;; I I I I II I ~I . . -- , f I I -- ~ ,," .1 ' tl . . , I -.;.. -. " < f I I ~i)- tt~ I I .' ,; l,.....J :--.. # n_"'''I'~'''1 -";""'-1 ........ , .~I"'-':'t! ~ ~'I~'-'"" ---1~' to , ( > I. · . J~ .' .~". _, I~ _ ji~L j ,I '1';r -;1 I 'I '{ r. I I' I-""~"'J ;;t ! _.~. ...~ I . i 0' ~ ~ ':: :~f --~I' __L:.....J.. ' I ~ 1 I I I ! -~ : I tl I" 11.,; " ", ., ~ ~ ~i !. iof t : I' '. ~ L , -f' ~ 1 -1 .,~ 1 ')]~" i .J.. . "1 - (... ~ r-.- - __ _~,"_ - .... I .,t." ~ :! I --~:---l1 _ _.1 L II . I - . - ~ ,-..-= ,::<:-=- ""....J" t I 1 ,," 11 I" ___ _____J 1- II :}J1 u .... _ _H_ __:.j\l f~' .. -... y r--.-' ,. , t_.. ..J ~1t. ~ i~ A I - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -:. ~ ~ 'I ~ r f ~ i ~ I I _ I L____ HI: . ~ , -r r~ .''('" " Il~ --,- : f ; u """ ~ . . . "lr""'Ti';':'\:.J~"": , " '~11J I I, r l H I r n , . .! r, ~ t '!; ~ fj , . , . .. . ' . . : ,'.',:,.':' -1~ '.~ )j ", , . "- ." , , ' I",!.--,.,'. t h I - f! t h ~t " n :\! ~ ~ I ! ~ .) . h" , ~ ~ NJ I , I I I . ~i t ~ I ~~ -. [)J . .. ~ ~n ~ t I ;, li I I I I I I I I '~~4 I ~ 1 )'1 t ~- I L--. , I -----::a-J -. , , - I": ~ l -;., \':~ ~'. l.1 ~ ~ :i... I ""=_ 1 I ,- ! Ii; 1 -,!I. 1 \ !;:.J ill \'il- !..;:: 1\-.- .... } ~ 1 I 1'!li d:l. 'l~ .d:r :::. p~ i 11 : II I , ; I - \ '<t .-.;: i t ~ :1.. .- t 8 ~ Eri : c::J' ~ 1 C! C1 i 4 i b J I. I H c c i ff t I I ~ J;,ti' , U[ .:;' ~-, II II II I } II 1 II i! __ .._J 1....____ t V ~ I ........,~ :,,",0. ATTACHMENT 3 RCC Minutes of 2/26/96 MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, February 26, 1996 Conference Room # I Public SeIVices Building CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:32 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Clark, Fisher, Hall, and Marquez. It was MSUC (MarquezIHall) to excuse Commissioner Clark ITom the meeting of February 12 as he was on vacation, and Chair Burrascano who had not received any meeting notice in a timely manner; vote: 5-0, motion carried. It was also MSUC (MarquezIHall) to excuse Commissioner Yamada who gave prior notice of his absence due to vacation; vote: 5-0, motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (HalllMarquez) to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1996, with one correction: on Page 2 under Commissioner Comments, the last sentence on the Wildlife Refuge hand-out should be deleted; vote: 5-0, motion carried. The meeting minutes of February 12, 1996 could not be voted upon due to lack of quorum ITom that meeting. Item carried to next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: I. Review of Negative Declaration IS-96- 13, Pacific Bay Auto Brokers. Mr. Reid noted the inadequate roads and traffic access around the project site, and clarified that the sliding glass doors should be reinforced for security reasons. It was MSUC (Marquez/Clark) to approve the negative declaration; vote 5-0, motion carried. 2, Review of Negative Declaration IS-96-l7, Texaco Remodel. The project's remodel and expansion will require major road reconstruction and modification to bring it up to the City's General Plan standards. Comments have been received ITom neighbors opposing the project. A brief discussion ensued on the hours of operation. It was MSUC (Fisher/Clark) to accept the negative declaration; vote: 5-0, motion carried. 3. The fiscal year budget for 1996- I 997 was reviewed by Mr. Reid. He stated that Council requested all commissions reduce their budgets by 10% ($284 for RCC). Mr. Reid pointed out that the Photo & Blueprinting item was indirectly an RCC expense as those monies had been allocated by the City for the historical society's museum expenses. It was MSUC (Clark/Burrascano) that $150 be transferred ITom RCC to the Chula Vista Historical Society budget, and to reduce travel by $134, thus meeting the requested 10% reduction; it was also suggested that the purchase of historical signs (Other Commodities) be spread out over more time to leave a cushion in the budget expenses; vote, 5-0, motion carried. Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 4. a. Review of Planning Commission Agenda: PCM-94-04, Consideration of street name change for segment of East Orange Avenue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road; public hearing - no action by RCC commissioners. b. PCM-96-l9, Amendment to the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan (LCP) modifying sign regulations in Subarea 4 of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone - Public hearing. Site area was pointed out on a map and it was explained that WalMart wants to increase the height in its sign from 10 to 35 feet; no action by RCC commissioners. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Reid handed out a letter of resignation from Linda Allen. The next meeting on March I I, will be a review of the amendments to the Otay Ranch EIR. CHA1RMAN'S COMMENTS: Burrascano noted that the RCC needs to fill the one vacancy. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Marquez will be out of town for the March 1 I, 1996 meeting. Hall commented on what appears to be inadequate planning and funding by the City as they cut curbs and sidewalks in her neighborhood to accommodate wheelchairs, when a driveway was located within five feet of the corner, and one of the sidewalks dead-ends at a bush. Fisher noted that he received the Otay Ranch reports one week later than expected which reduced the time for review of the documents. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 7:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES ~~J Barbara Taylor ATTACHMENT 4 Negative Declaration for 18-96-13 with Disclosure Statement MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Doug Reid NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Negative Declaration (fmding of no significant impact) and the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. These documents are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p,m., Monday through Friday. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration should provide their written comments to the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, This proposed fmding does !1Q1 constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it ~ detennines if the project could have significant environmental impact. Projects which could have significant impact must have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence. For further infonnation concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Barbara Reid at (619) 691-5101. This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for period of not less than thirty (30) days. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 623-172- 13/23 PROJECT LOCATION: 2952 Main Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is an existing 19,250 square foot lot located at 2952 Main Street. The site includes an existing 696 square foot, one-story structure. DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Chula Vista City Council INITIAL STUDY NO. IS-96- 13 DATE: February 5, 1996 negative declaration 'I '""'I PROJECT NAME: PACIFIC BAY AUTO BROKERS PROJECT LOCATION: 2952 Main Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 623- 172- 13/23 PROJECT APPLICANT: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers CASE NO: IS-96-13 DATE: February 5, 1996 A. Project Setting The project site is an existing 19,250 square foot loi located at 2952 Main Street. The site includes an existing 696 square foot, one-story structure. There is one access point on Main Street. The average graded slope of the site is 0.8%. The maximum graded slope of the site is 1.0%. On-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the project. Multi-family dwellings are located to the north, east and west of the site. There is agricultural land located to the south where strawberries are grown. B. Project Description Phase I of the project is the addition of a 2,355 s. f. auto garage on the northwest corner of the site to a 636 s. f. existing office building. Phase II will be located on the northeast corner of the site and "Xill be the addition of a 1,200 s. f. auto garage. There will be 9 on-site parking spaces provided. The applicant will be required to incorporate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention measures (SWPPP) into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan. School impact fees and a soils report are required prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the disabled parking space needs to be located at the closest main entry of existing structure. The discretionary actions include: the design approval by the Design Review Committee, a Variance regarding a change in setback from 50 feet to 0 feet and a Special Land Use Permit. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The current zoning on-site is ILP (Limited Industrial-subject to a Precise Plan) and the site is designated IL(Limited Industrial). The project is within the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. '--\. ~{rt- -.- F""","~~ ~=t~~ city of chula vllta planning department em OF environmental review .ectlon. mULA VISTA D, Identification of Environmental Effects Traffic At this time, primary roads are not adequate to serve the project site. Main Street is missing street improvements and a 13-foot right-of-way dedication along the Main Street frontage is needed. Street widening, an 8-foot sidewalk at 41 feet from centerline and curb and gutter paving is also required. In addition, a raised concrete median and installation of one 250 watt HPSV street light at the westerly property line is needed. Implementation of these public improvements will provide satisfactory traffic service by complying with four-lane major standards at ultimate street design standards. At current street widths, after Phase II is completed, the street will operate at Level of Service (LOS) "B", However, upon completion of the Main Street Reconstruction Project the street will operate at LOS "A", Fire Department The Initial Study has noted that the following project modifications must be perfonned in order to adequately comply with Fire Department standards: . Fire flow on-site is required at 1,500 GPM . One on-site fire hydrant will be required . Striping will be required with the words "No Parking-Fire Lane" along the Fire Department wide access road area The nearest Fire Station is located 3 miles away. Average response time to the site would be 4-5 minutes. The Fire Department will be able to provide adequate protection to the site without an increase in personnel or equipment. Police Department The Police Department proposes the following security suggestions: . A security evaluation of the site prior to completion of the project is recommended . Extra steps should be taken to reinforce sliding glass door which leads from the outside to the main office . Lighting should be sufficient to allow visibility of the property by patrol officers The Police Department will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site with no expected increase in personnel or equipment. (M:\bome\planninglJr:eith\negdcc:.pba) ''i'' Additional Requirements Per Section 14.20.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, applicant must incorporate Stonn Water Pollution Prevention measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which is required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The proposed project will not result any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is be required. F. Consultation I, Individuals and Orl1anizations City of Chula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Ann Pedder Pease, Planning Gary Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Emmett Horsfall, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Creative Design Group 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and E1R (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code (M:\home\planning\keith\negdec.pba) ""." 3. Initial Study This environmental determination 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 report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula 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. @/ ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR (M:\bomc\p]anning\keitb\n~.pba) ,""" Case No.IS-96-13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2952 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 4. Name of Proposal: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers 5. Date of Checklist: February 3, 1996 Potentially Potentially Significant "'" than Significant Uoless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 181 plans or 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 0 0 0 181 of an established commnnity (including a low-income or minority commnnity)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Les. than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The project will be consistent with existing General Plan designations of IL (Limited Industrial) and zoning of ILP (Limited Industrial with a Precise Plan modifier) with the granting of a Variance, Special Use Permit and Design Review. The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. ll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e,g" through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: The project is the construction of two auto garages and would not exceed growth forecasts, nor induce growth either locally or City-wide, as the project site does not contain any existing housing. o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 m. 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 0 0 0 181 relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification 0 0 0 181 of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 181 soils, 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? Potentially Potentially Significant "'" than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 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 would require some on-site grading but would not create any landfonn hazards or modifications, IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 181 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 181 any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181 direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 181 either 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 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181 water otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Potentially SigniOcant Les. than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Comments: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant must incorporate Stonn Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) measures into their Hazardous Materials Response Plan, which is required by Chapter 6,95 of the California Health and Safety Code. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 jgJ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 jgJ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary 0 0 0 jgJ or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: Air quality would not be affected by this project. VI. TRANSPORTATlON/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 0 0 181 congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features 0 0 0 jgJ (e,g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g" fann equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 jgJ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 jgJ site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 jgJ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 jgJ (M:\bomc\planning\keith\cklist.pba) p"", Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Le.s than Significant Impact No Impact 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: This project is expected to generate 80 trips per day. At current street widths, after Phase 11 is completed, the street will operate at Level of Service (LOS) "B". However, upon completion of the Main Street Reconstruction Project, the street will operate at LOS "An. This total would not exceed current "LOS" levels and therefore would not effect traffic service. 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 0 0 0 181 (e,g, 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 0 0 0 181 planning efforts? Comments: The project site is previously developed and in an urbanized area of the city. There are no endangered biological species on this project site, No biological concerns are present at this time. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 181 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 181 resource protection, will this project impact this protection? (M:\hQme\planning\Uim\cklisLpba) p..oS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated [.e". than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: Site is not designated for mineral resource protection and there will be no energy conservation conflicts. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 181 potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed plan would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project would not release toxic or hazardous material into the environment during upset conditions. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Noise levels are not expected to increase with implementation of this project. 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? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? (M:\homt\plaDning\keith\cklist..pba) Pog,' Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Los. than Significant Impact No Impact e) Other governmental services? o o o 181 Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? o o o 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS o o o 181" 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 ChuIa Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 3,0 miles away and would be associated with a 4-5 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department will require the following improvements to the project site: . Fire flow on-site is required at 1,500 GPM . One on-site fire hydrant will be required . Stripping will be required with the words "No Parking-Fire Lane" along the Fire Department wide access road area The Fire Department can adequately deliver service to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. b) Police o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I 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. (M:\homc\planning\kcith\cklist.pba) Page7 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated [,e" than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: . A security evaluation of the site prior to completion of the project is recommended . Extra steps should be taken to enforce sliding glass door which leads from the outside to the main office . Lighting should be sufficient to allow visibility of the property by patrol officers The Police Department will be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site with no expected increase in personnel or equipment. c) Traffic o o 181 o 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: At this time, primary roads are not adequate to serve the project site. Main Street is missing street improvements and a 13-foot right-of-way dedication along the Main Street frontage is needed. Street widening, an 8-foot sidewalk at 41 feet from centerline and curb and gutter paving is also required. In addition, a raised concrete median and installation of one 250 watt HPSV street light at the westerly property line is needed. Implementation of these public improvements will provide satisfactory traffic service by complying with four-lane major standards at ultimate street design standards. d) ParkslRecreation o o o 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this project. e) Drainage o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that stonn 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, t) Sewer o o o 181 (M:\bornc\planning\kcith\cklist.pba) P"oS PotenliaJly Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard, o o o 181 g) Water 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 pennit issuance, XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 181 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 181 1) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposed street improvements will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: (M:\home\planning\keith\cklist.pba) Page9 Potentially Potentially Significant ..... than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 181 the 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 0 0 0 181 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 181 could 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: There are no scenic vistas or views in the vicinity of the site that will be affected by project implementation. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of D 0 0 181 or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 181 or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 181 cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious D 0 0 181 or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General D D D 181 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The site is not in an area of high potential for archeological resources. This site has been disturbed as a result of previous building, The proposed project will not have any negative impacts on archeological resources, (M:\bome\planning\keith\cklisLpba) PagelO XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: Due to the fact that the site has been previously disturbed and is not located 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, Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact 0 0 0 No Impact 181 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: This project will not create any new demands on recreation facilities, XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for 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: None of the impacts associated with the project are considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. . o o o 181 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tenn, to the disadvantage of long-tenn, environmental goals? o o o 181 (M;~\pJanning\keith\cklist.pba) Pagel 1 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any short tenn or long tenn environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are 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: All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant, as a result of the applicant's compliance with the City's Code requirements. City facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities will be required, The project does not have the potential for individually limited effects being cumulatively considerable. o o o 181 d) Does the project have environmental effect . which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient scope to cause any such impacts. o o o 181 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, D Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation D Public Services D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance (M;\home\planning\kcilh\cklisl.pba) Pagel2 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, 181 I fmd 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 frod that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o o I fmd 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 . Sign(2~ ra/ :shr' Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista (M:\bome\planning\keith\cklisLpba) Page13 -..-...... APPLICATION CANNOT T ~CEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO m lNTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER INITIAL STUDY City of Chula Vista Application Fonn T- QI.o-DJ;2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title r,., r,e>!lor. 8(1-'-1 .A'(/~ k,)!<,prs- 1'"' I '.' (..-h 2. Project Locanon (Street address or description) ;;. 9 s,? (/:rJ(?- [/(::s\"'" c"^-- 7"/9'1( Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. C;:;;,;;J3_ r?;;...- (-3 -1-" <::>.~ Brief Project Description ()(~c:! 'Z.,1;\50S,p-. IWfo GlwIAt'jL.. 1"hc.:'I€.'t. -\0 1lfGq(p $'. p-. t~\s--r~ offt<;a.. [u:("':'1 .kOO1-\-)<Y1AL. ~?-oo ~, r- AII-h> 0v~ fWrx-1L ~\l:f ""11,1) ~ ""'/ iYJA.!. Name of Applicant ~f\t.\"~::\~ IPI'tY ,AJ"rC 6~~ Address '2. <'} <;;:>- in flrt/4.sf" - Fax# "" Phone l City C.{t\J1./f\ ~\J~TI~ c;,. C'j\"1/f"" State U - Zip .- Name of Preparerl Agent c.( ek\iu D Q.S ( I'D N core! Jf' ( j ,C ) . Address~ ~ ~ M s...~~ 1) Fax# Phone i....r2 '2-/<17).--- City C ,V . State C\. Zip 'FC1 (I Relation to Applicant ^':J2.A'\,\ Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator, \'1 "J- SO a. Permits or approvals required. 3. 4. 5, 6. General Plan Amendment _ Rezone{Prezone _ Grading Permit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Permit '/.. Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation ,...,.,..";,.;..;...............-,.'..".-.,....,, " Far Office Use;. Only . . Case No. IS" <1&:'15 '_~m""m ~=!~~y-;: ~ .~~~o€~~~............ . RelatdlpscNO.;< ~.Ot''''''J'''''''''''"''~ /~1~~:~~. ~ ....'...'..,....,...,..,...,.,..,..........'..."..;'....,.,.......,...,.....,.""... /J)?, /~ z:j- _ Specific Plan _ Conditional Use Permit ..J6,Variance _ Coastal Development ~ Other Permit . . _..( ~~fI.L \..cvu. \:\~ ~\"(\\-\-. If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b. _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan _ Traffic Impact Report Hazardous Waste Assessment Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Arch. Elevations _ Hydrological Study ~ Landscape Plans _ Biological Study _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Archaeological Study Ji:::.. Improvement Plans Noise Assessment _ Soils Report = Other Agency Permit _ Geotechnical Report .rI- Other c;~ ~ WPC:F:\HOME\l'LANNlNG\5I'OREIN021.A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 1 , -"., 7. Indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are btang submitted at this time, a. Permits or approvals required. ~ Design Review Application _ Tentative SuM Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation General Plan Amendment Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Pennit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch, Review _ Special Use Permit _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Coastal Development 4 Other Permit I "S~u:JL lc-.-.<1\ (eVl"'lt. , 1 ~ B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: square footage \q /1.,00 or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 6 a. 2. b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be utilized? /l. \'(>\>-, 'O':I\~\\~>~ ~Wk~~ J:.. f-."?oD S"y' "P AA~ ,,'2-00 ~+ . Complete this section if proje...t 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 I. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use P72"4 f::>\ ~~:J ~v b. Floor area '-1/2..,./ q (: S*~I)eight of structures(s) 1(0 c. Type of construction used in the structure V -N WPC:r.\IJOMElPLANNING\SfORED\J021-A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 2 ~ ~ Describe major access points to the structures and the U.lentation to adjoining properties and streets /l 'C>t-\~ w~'S O\(o:d\~ ,-y \111,1,-1\/1 s.i WlAwl 4~ Y\l^~ u..""T ~ i.L""'T Number of on-site parking spaces provided ?-::> <:;;'1 t'J rl,\ "''Y ' t Estimated number of employees per shift 8 Number of shifts I Total? II .. I _ Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate fVJiO ~~dvJ' ~(l..\c:: \o\h(Z..."F- \'5. ~ pw<;aYlAL. \..)~ (,>I\\j ~ h. Estimated number of deliveries per day )l5 i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate d. e. f, g. ? j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings .~ k. I. Hours of operation B ~vi\ Type of exterior lighting -\P ~ pirf\ 4, If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d, Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces _ h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS I. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? WPC,F,IIIOMFol'LANNING'Sf0RErN021-A.93 (Ref, 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 3 ~ 2, Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipate.!? If yes, complete the following: a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth offm 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc,) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft, or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 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. WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNIN~021-A.93 (ReL 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 4 " D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING I. Geology . Has a geology study been conducted on the property? 1\ I) (If yes, please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made? I\D (If yes, please attach) 2. Hvdrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? nO (If yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? ~o b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? Y\D c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? \1\0 d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? ~O e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ~ "1l'lJ\ rtQ()\I'-e..d Aw "\')~.;XY) Cla;:f's e.{\.\- r). u~ GY\'\1> ~, r;\1"r;.\,,~ p-YO rwt-l-W- -\0 1 3. Noise a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? 0/\0 b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single- family residences)? V\D 4. Biology a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? V'O b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Y\.O c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No ~ (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. Y\f>>'1 jI ./ WPC:F:'HOME\P!.ANNlNG\STOREIJ\1021-A.93 (Ref, 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page S ~. 5. Past Use of the Lan" a, Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? ~O b. Are there any known paleontological resources? \'\0 c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? -^(It> d, What was the land previously used for? 'i? -'2. 6~ <;:\YlU) (;>f ?v-<--- Q..b I \~yv\E:;S' ~~ 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses cUITently existing on the project site, 4lS,~~ itb S. r~ , Cf--f1 (~P.x.>d..drlo.,j& S,H ra..ll'\(itILJ ~ cyo0 <;;\X'-c.9-- \)~ 1<'>. d,<;, rLw;} b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property, North 4~ ~.ef~...s(... ~'>\~f1p/L. South y.~I}.,.v( st-~ ~.M~~SVC:c.Q.v\+ '(Jcw-oJ.. j East \'\oft c..c,;Y\.WI'i'<~ '(',,-,,\~.\1~'~ tL ~ West ",.,>^ CA~rr"I,j" \1",J;~.\.1A<..., \^ tL.'7""~ 7, Social a. Are there any residents on site? iV:J IT so, how many? b, Are there any current employment opportunities on site? YIp IT so, how many and what type? 8. Please provide any other information which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. s.,~ f)La..>e-I1fiJ~", '->f-((,/I(,J..uL -Q,O'l>"- 0.. Mlj\6l.k\1~~ <,~. -t\vw~ 1,~\LL, Iai tf,r.u....t eWlf'0'tjInMt Qftf'~~ t.)/JCo pAo~<Ud- \ <;. Arv"OJ-Q(i, WPC,F:\HOMElPLANNINGISTOREIN021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 6 E, CERTIFICA nON I, as owner/owner in escrow* /l/f-'J' U' dt's ~'<Y/7 b/ f,_ Print name 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. / ,4cec:'c'~~-u ;f:~t:,t; L Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or Consultant or Agent Signature /d) /c. /"/ f Date *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. WPC,F,\HOMElPLANNlNG\ST'OREtN021.A.93 (Ref. 1020,93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 7 INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT Name of Applicant: ~;ACl..k Q:,k'\ -,." - Address: '7_ q,:;> -- yY\c.L\V"\ ST City: r/ . \f . CA . State Name of Authorized Representative (if signatory): r ~J,.,.u /) Address: -:2.,0<::> ~~ ~ _' 'Su. \.... \-) City C:-\.I . " State Agreement Date: Deposit Amount Au.\-oQ~ k 5' Phone CA . Zip q Iq (I ~~\f,t-l <Orcl'p (-1.~) Phone \....\"L"? -'-!C.(l-:l.... Zip "Ie, 'I r..A . This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal cOlporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: Whereas, the Applicant has applied to the City for an Initial Study of the type aforereferenced ("Initial Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to pennilting the Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and. Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said Initial Study through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas, the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: I. Applicant's Duty to Pay, The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Service related to applicant's Initial Study, including all of the City's direct and overhead costs related thereto, This duty of the Applicant shall be referred to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay." A, Applicant's Deposit Duty As partial perfonnance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1. The City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against the Applicant's Deposil If, after the conclusion of processing the Applicant's Iriitial Study, any portion of the Deposit remains, the City shall return said balance to the Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial Study, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue to provide Processing Services, The duty of the Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as the "Applicant's Deposit Duty". n. City's Duty The City shall, upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Payor the Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to the Applicant's Initial Study application, WPC:F:\HOMEll'LANNlNG\STORED\1021-A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Ref, 1022.93) Page 8 --.. A, The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study application. or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time frame requested by the Applicant or estimated by the City. B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence the conduct of the Initial Study foc which the applicant has applied The City shall use its discretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement. m. Remedies A. Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Study which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. B. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees had costs, IV. Miscellaneous A. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing, All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified with retwn receipt requested, at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. B. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, and perlormance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. C, Multiple Signatories If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the perlormance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. D. Signatory Authority The signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that it is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shaII be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by the Applicant WPCoF,\HQMElt'LANNlNG\S'I'OREIN021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93) Page 9 E. Hold Harmless Applicant shaIl defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages. liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of processing Applicant's Initial Study, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, the Applicant, at its oWn expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnifcation of the City shall be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Applicant. F, Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedmes. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has ftrst been presented in writing and filed with the City of ChuIa Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chuta Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same, Upon request by the City, the Applicant shall meet and confer in good faith with the City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tenns of this Agreement. Now, therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the tenns and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the tenos hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. City City of ChuIa Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 BY:~~ Dated: I.:s/ (,111.< Applicant (or authorized representative) By::;q~ ~~ By: Dated: /.P./(:/"j'J- WPC:F:\HOMElPLANNlNG\STORElJ\J021-A,93 (Ref, 1020,93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page 10 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. PI1D. SHARON GILES PATRICK A. Jl.OO PAMELA B, SMITH MIKEA.~ SUPERINTENDENT UBIA S. GIl, PhD. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH January 5, 1996 :-.C~:';:.';'.~-.~ , 'i."'i:::.".'-~" J4N -~ 1 J 79'16 !::J; . i..A,rV"V" , , il\,r, " Ms. Barbara Reid Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: 15-96-13 I FA-690 I DQ-256 Applicant: Pacific Bay Auto Brokers Location: 2952 Main Street Dear Ms. Reid: This is to advise you that the project located at 2952 Main Street, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Otay/Montgomery Schools are the home schools for this project. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of approximately 1-1/2 - 2 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 $.28 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.13/square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.15/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, M ~U-~"'- Kate Shurson Director of Planning & Facilities msw:c:smallcom Case No.: lS-96- I3 CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zoning on site: ILP (Limited-Industrial, subject to a Precise Plan) Does the project confonn to the current zoning? Yes II, General Plan land use designation on site: IL (Limited-Industrial) North: High-residential, Medium residential, Low-Medium residential South: Research and Limited Manufacturing East: Low-Medium residential, Research and Limited Manufacturing West: Medium residential, Research and Limited Manufacturing Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? N/A Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? N/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: NI A School Capacity Enrollment Units Proposed Generating Factors Students Generated From Project Elementary Junior High Senior High .30 .29 .10 IV. Remarks: N/A . tf{l}J. nlllng or Representative ... 111~" . . ROUTING FORM RECEIVED DEC 13 1995 lJl1TE: . December 11, 1995 FR/ / 1D Sr:BJECT: Application for Initial Study (15- 95-I3/FA-~/DQ 255 ) Checkprint 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 (15- /FA- /DQ- ) The Project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 595 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 ~ CITY OF CfJUL!\ vl~IA Ken Larson, Building & Housing BUILDING & HOUSING DEPT. John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2) Anne Moore, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, 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, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson 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 Barbara Reid Environmental Section Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by January 4, 1995, Comments: 13~~ . ~ __d/A ~ ~ ~~ @ ~~~ ~J ~~;yH"""': ~ i~;';"";-~' '~~rfr~.I~~~' ~~~~~. ~~/~mJ f1201v\, f!J/I: FM: -'~ ROUTING FORM ---. Decemberll, 1995 -~ Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR on y) cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR nly) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (E only) Roger Daoust, Engineering /3, EIR/2) Anne Moore, Asst city rney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire D tment M~rty Schmidt, arKs & Recreation crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Conservation Coordinator Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Garry Williams, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFC (IS/Draf~ EIR-=-T annexation is involved) artin Miller, Project ing Log (route form only) Doug Reid (community Deve opment Proj~cts) Other Barbara Reid Environmental Section S Application for Initial Study (IS- 96-13/FA-~/DQ 256 ) Checkprint 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: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 and forward to me any comments you have Please review the document by January 4, 1996,. Comments: ytft/(.t:;:/77 1;Z-/);"-7s- C;c-T f?ZWiOiI S CDMY77(:vJ'77 S#Ct:/. 12"'l.Jj(:~J 7D /l/I,A,zrI/J MIt.<.iYt ~ Case No. ;5.cf{P-/5 FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? And what is the Fire Department's estimated ructiontime? ~ I"\llE:"", -ru IJ~>'V)B;I FI~"'- Smrrll~.j "f - S rII I ,.J,;-; 'G. ~ i.."',r}''''':)~ -;" I "" ~ _ i,~ (") I . 1'- \---'0 B. Will the> Fue Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or pcrsoMel? '11::"3 C. Remarks 90::- (?OZC\JI 005 U-7Y\(>,eCs Sl.-Jct,.m . {?u4~ ire Marshal ~ ~ ::r7'j /;2-( )~) Date WI'C~C/ISI'OREt7II022.93 (Itol. 102183) (Ilol. 1020.93) Pqe6 ; - , ROUTING FORM DATE: . December 11, 1995 ~: F~M' FFJ9ff: ""Ta - Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cli~~ Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR,only) 'Roger.rDaoust, Engineering'(IS/3; EIR/2) Anne Moore, Asst city Attorney (Dra~t Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, 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, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson 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 ~orm only) Doug Reid (Community Development projects) Other Barbara Reid Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application ~or Initial Study (IS- 95-13/FA- 590/DO 255 ) checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO ) Review of a Dra~t EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP ) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_J Review of Dra~t Neg Dec (1S- /FA- IDO- J The Project consists o~: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and ~orward to me any comments you have by January 4, 199&, Comments: _ 0(;00 - 'fo - 'I S ~:J '1 Case No. ]:5 -'7b-l} INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION I. Drainage A. Is the project site within a flood plain? A/ D If so, state which FEMA Floodway Frequency Boundary. /V / A B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? 5"" ('11 c.t....- dI'.AiNA~ (/ows -/0 AN <<!.X;S77N't s7P",,..., dJ'/1,,./ 5ystAro ''''' /'7/1;"; $TLu"l. C. Are they adequate to serve the project? Y ( $. If not, please explain briefly. , D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? S,-,,, f' n "'--' E, C;(,C/!'N/I'j-<-- f/;:;W5 0.w /'N}:"; 5 7;:-<-<. r j N fh-<-o d'f<-#(vor/ +c>wlfds /1 clJ€A"tvA'f<- 5y5'7<.... ". Are they adequate to serve the project? ;/ ~ ~. If not, please explain briefly. W<s7<te1r g/!dA/wAy' n. O~~ (A. ('.'-\\ v- WI '1 I TransPortation What roads provide primary access to the project? ./v1A/N .57 !<-EET -rouf?-Tt+ Av'6NVE , What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~O 1/ Se....!ce sf..."> x. .;zo 1r.'l's/d-eo. II =- 80 f-rlPs f-o/d./,,' ~ /J01'13 : Does 11/07 I NCW t> ~ P M A-~ E rr p,eo,"Oset> OtVc; STC~..y sr~vc::n.lt2-e; ~r C. What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the. primary access roads before and ~"::ow,,; . I.? . ~ after project comp enon. Foor ~ Street Name Before After . Fvf/~TH AVcAltJt:: 3.:2's0 Z?300 /'1MN S.,I!Gr::r .;l 0 ,;;L ? D C9- D 3 70 B. Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) "C" design ADT volume? If yes, please specify. NO WPC"',IIIOMEll'l.ANNtNCIIS'J'OREIN02l.93 (Re. 1021.93) (lid. 1020.93) Paae2 Case No. :IS -'16-} '> If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly, tJ/A . D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? #0 If not, please explain briefly. MAIN STfZEET is H' $$,,";6 ST/2€E:1 IMp;2.0tl~Mfi:N1"S AN'!> AbDtTtONAL- TZ-/G./fr-OF-WIo.'f P~I c-A/lo,A.) IS /\/e:.e:. "Deb. E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? tV 0 If so, identify: Location Jo/ / A Cumulative L.O.S. "'IA F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivaJent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips), If yes, a Traffic Impact AnaJYsis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will.not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance, Yes X- No 80 ~ ;;l..'-IOO ...-.. The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact AnaJysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of the proposed project? x: Yes No If yes, please describe. 1-1/ SSI N~ s-rtZ_E.E.OI IHr'f2DV€Me!!TS. H. Is the project cO!l~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed project. YeS, PIZ-O.!GCT 15 CO/'o1SIS,Tc~r, tJ/A. 1 J. Is a traffic study required? Yes Is there any dedication required? . Yes, '" '''7:J If so, please specify. /;31- 0'" X No /01",,'11 5+"'~+ .f/"9T1+~ WPC:I':\HOME'ftANNINOISTOREIN022.93 (Ilef, 1021.93) (Ilef. IO:ZO.93) Pacc3 Case No, :.rS -1(;; -1.3 K, Is Ih~r~ any street wid~ning requir~d? Ye...s If so, pl~as~ sp~cify. ?Q,v(!.. C~rhJ.:J€,ffo-- OJo/d .sid~jk (31) ""+ ilJ/ r "" j' .... 7 -rroM. l..-~+er Ifle- L. Arc Ih~re any olh~r strc:~t irnprov~m~nts required? Y e.~ If so, please specify th~ general nature of the necessary improvements. ~A/~~ Ce>l1cr(!.-re md/1U(1 <=>-1d ;">+.../I,,t,,&.-, vf ONJ- ;J.S"O/ WAr-!- III'~Y .sfre~f "-/i/..r .0+ WE'st-..dy t/or..ry I,.~ .. M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future buiIdout General Plan conditions? (please provide a brief explanation). Yes, r"-o jecr.....d. ("",-fAe.d rJbl;c... l"'prOJe~+s. LV';/I 'f"":J,'ide<;",f..st~c4.,r( +~r,tf..c $<"I'v'I<-e I;y c~'r'~ w,'+4 FOvr I"'--L M-:J.,r .st-a.,.,J..,,-c:Ls ",t ",1+;,...3.e... drLe+,..j~~r "?+.....dc../ds. Soils ill. A. Arc Ihere any anticipated adv~rse geotechnical conditions on the project site? 1.0,;/( wow,.) B. If yes, specify these conditions. .N //1 C. Is a Soils Report necessary? ;/.<.5. ,o,roM. 1D j/'<-. ;SSiI'/lNCR- of G~A,j.",;- /j",.//NZ g",;/,!.nl /'0:,.,,7$. IV. Land Fonn 'g/!AN . A. What is the average Iiatur3l slope of the site? ~r, _ B. What is the maximum nat\lfal slope of the site? _I :/,. 't "-/l,{.,./ V. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? /'1/ rJ VI. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid uNk IIIVWN -::r ,./5.. P.r; c,i." '7 ;NIbt<M/f"lCi,v p/Zi>vrI2zd. Liquid (63 GPo (;),5i:> ~O"'S) Ov'~ eYJs7iN}- vs<. What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? A 15" 1/C P S, w"':. L;N<- F/vw;f ; JoV ih<.- W{s1i",/y c/t?<'c77tJJ (-"wtV-R I-7AorJ S!J/-U--!, C-D"/AI<'I!: ID fh<-. :T",d/.ooS;;', A 1 jl, "...it VII".! Sf [.vU. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (IT no, please explain) <,-, 5 WPC,t:,~O\nOREt:NO:u.93 (RoC. 1011.93) (RoC. I02D.93) Page 4 Case No. ;t:"5- 96-/3 Vll. National Pol1utant Discharge Elimination System lNPDES) Stonnwater Reauirements Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stonnwater Pennit? /I/o. . H yes, specify which NPDES pennit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. A/ /A Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? 'f.... Yes No Additional comments Pc;: 5,,(77'vN 1'7'.;).D.;;;"D of' -th<- C/l~/~ l/iS'/A nVN,"';p-1/ c..udc /1.P"'/;(rl~ Nt-,-;r /P1/cO,P./,o/u":?,<:- S7DXM wff;!;/? ~c//v 7i D..v Pfr.'<..//( ","170'1/ /"'7.:./l5v"'-<., <; /N-/D -the:;(, !I/J2..rlJli,:/'o<_s ,/7/!7lj(,/I/S- R<5'pv,,;S~ P/AN~ W/,:cJ/ ;5 I'?<J v ,,,-cd hy C hrlp-r,J'I. 6, 95. 0 F fl.<... C A 1,('."",:,. vm Hqr1J, /1",) 5/1 (;7'"r C o,f,.. Remarks Please identify ar.d discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. 1/}-J{l/;$ Date wPC:F,'HQMNlANNING\n'OREI1IIO:z2.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93) PlieS ROUTING FORM DATE: . December 11, 1995 TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John ~ippitt, Engineering (E1R only) cliff Swanson, Engineering (E1R only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIRI2) Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & E1R) Carol Gove, 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, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson 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 FROM: Barbara Rei d Environmental Section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 96-13IFA-.l.2Q.IDQ 256 ) Checkprint Draft E1R (20 days) (E1R-_/FB-_/DQ ) Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP) Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_) Review of Draft Neg Dec (1S- /FA- /DQ- ) The project consists of: Phase I of the.porject is the addition of a 2,300 s.f. auto garage to a 696 s.f. existing office building and Phase II to be built 1,200 s.f. auto garage Location: 2952 Main St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by Janua ry 4, 1996, Comments: f\6~~ @ l ~ eJe [~f-A-~ ~ 'fLu-. ~r-~. ~ S(A~ ~~c41G-\. . APPLICATION CANNOT r ;CEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER INITIAL STUDY City of Chula Vista Application Form 1- QI.D-D7;l. A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title_{c (/o/,cr e)('-~I (,lk ~N<'J?rc. 2. Project Locanon (Street address or description) c;;. 9 5~ (/il)~:'" //1 ~ I "'"' C c,,- <::jlo/ir Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. t;;;';;; 3 _ i -?,;;.. - 1:3 i" .::> ~ Brief Pr~ect Description p-op--.-:.e.d 'l.,'7;\:o S. r' Ac-h fdwti.C'j-- rh:.:'I€.L. -Tv ti./(d:10 $'. p-. t-':-\'>IL7 "fftUL. h,t:Y"'"1 A'(.JO\~""AL. \'2.."C~, r- ,1v~ 0v~ fl-lll)l?..1f ~\tt ~I II) ~ '1U h1A-(. Name of Applicant f1\~\~\(" ~ Jr0tc B~~ Address 2.<"/i?:> 1n/'rit4.sf' - Fax# '- Phone t. City n'l~jl/f\ -\j\'.TI~ 0.. ql~1 r - State U - Zip Name of Preparer/Agent C (e.kttV b Q 5/0 N corci Jf' ( j ,c... ) . Address;:;~?:> ~-P 1<<)..(. ~,;t€.. 1) Fax# Phone ,-\'"'22-{C())-- City C ,\1 . State U\. Zip q tCt II Relation to Applicant A"-J"'--"'."\ Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. 3. 4. 5. 6. a. Pennits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Permit. _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Permit 't.. Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation For Office Uss, 9n1Y . Case No; IS~ '1&-/::> 'DpstA'rnnt Ii .~~ ..~~b Receipt No. :3. Date RcC'd. tJ - . Accepted by . /) "'- ProjectNo,FA-' .. .. . .~st.N~~.~Jl5~ .... ". .~~g,~~1l--;;;; .,.,_.', n.."......__.. ._ ',_'_,,', .-...-...-....-.-.'.-...y'_..-... /lJ?!I/<> ~ _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Permit .J6,Variance _ Coastal Development ..)<. Other Permit. _...( ~~o.c..L v.vu. ~'::.s- ~\'i\\ -\-. H project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan _ Traffic hnpact Repon Hazardous Waste Assessment Arch. Elevatioos ~ Landscape Plans _ Tentative Subd. Map ..:d::::... hnprovement Plans _ Soils Repon _ Geotechnical Report WPC,}':\HOMElPLANNlNG\STCJIlEIN021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. lon93) _ Hydrological Study Biological Study = Archaeological Study Noise Assessment = Other Agency Permit ;;J- Other <;~ ~ PileI 7. Indicate other appJ.J..:ations for pennits or approvals that are oeUlg submitted at this time. a. Permits or approvals required. ::b... Design Review Application _ Tentative Subd. Map _ Redevelopment Agency OPA _ Redevelopment Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation General Plan Amendment Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Permit _ Tentative Parcel Map Site Plan & Arch. Review _ Special Use Permit _ Specific Plan _ Conditional Use Permit Variance _ Coastal Development 4 Other Pennit I I . ~~V-W\ ~ ~\"'lt' B. PROPOSED PROJECT Land Area: square footage \q /{.C?O or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and pwpose. " 1. a. 2. b. Does the project involve the c<?nstruction of new buildings, o~ will existing structure be utilized? .1, ~'" 'O\\L\\W0~ i2h,~.e, t- 'L.,100 S..t' \Ji-\.,.~ \,~ ~+ . Complete this section if proje...t is residential or mixed use. a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family Townhouse CondominilpTI b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d, Number of Units: 1 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 ~al or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use. b2 '4 f;:,1 ~J ~v b. Floorarea '-1..2..,-, q(! S*~~ightofstructures(s) 10 c. Type of construction used in the structure V -N WPC'F''HOMIN'LANNlNG\n'OREI1II021-....93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. lon93) Pile 2 C R U L A V I S TAP 0 L ICE D E PAR T MEN T C RIM E PRE V E N T ION U NIT PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ~ ;', DATE: J4 ' IV] 7 January 10, 1996 i /, '. ~ 19,,^ III qc: ~ I J-'i.Jj. -.'.J Barbara Reid, &Jmilj, onmental t?(j ! V/~,i ,. CArn Brookover(~captain Withers, Investigations ,~ Mary Jane Diosda~PS Pacific Bay Auto IS 96-13 TO: VIA: FROM: PROJECT: -XX- The Polioe Department and the Crime Prevention Unit will be able to provide an adequate level of servioe for this proposed site. -XX- There is no expeoted inorease in personnel or equipment in order to maintain Polioe Department servioes. -XX- Please forward additional information regarding this projeot to the Crime Prevention unit. Estimated response time for priority 1 calls to this project: Grid: 36 2.74% of the CFS are P-1 with an A.R.T. of 4:41 Estimated response time for priority 2 calls to this project: Grid: 36 33.32% of the CFS are P-2 with an A.R.T. of 6:18 Comments: From 01/01/95 to 12/31/95 there were 4190 Calls For Service with this Reporting District. 1243 of these calls resulted in crime cases. Note: The above priority 1 and 2 response times are within recommended thresholds. Upon approval, prior to completion of this project, it is recommended that the business take advantage of a commercial security consultation of the project site. Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me any time at 691-5127. cc: CPTED PD/cpu 11/95 Sweetwater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5553 ". t"te 08 ..~.% ~ , ........,'.: . Division of Planning and Facilities February 5, 1996 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91 91 0 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: Case No. 15-96-1 3 The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit. S;~.t/~ Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/ml Sweetwater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5553 .. -- -. - ,- . , ... ~ j Division of Planning and Facilities December 18, 1995 Ms. Barbara Reid Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91 910 Dear Ms. Reid: Re: 96-13/FA-690/DQ-256 The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit. Sincerely, ~~~ Thomas Silva ~ Director of Planni g TSlml -:-~ ~WEETW A TER AUTHC _ ., TV ~~TIN,.~ R.-~ , , :v. '" '(;"'''0'''''- 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD . BUD POCKlINGTON, CHAIRMAN GEORGE H. WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN r JAMES F. DOUD. SA. t 8 0 SUE JARRETT 8 7-::}f")I4ARGARET COOK WELSH ..... ";UAMES s. WOLNrEWICZ CARY F. WRIGHT '-'''-''; .... ,.,:.:';' WANDA AVERY TREASURER ClAN J. REEVES SECRETARY February 5, 1996 Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED AUTO GARAGE 2952 MAIN STREET CASE NO: IS-96-13 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1996 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is an 8-inch and a 12-inch water main located on the north side of Main Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there is one water service to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 22-B map which shows the existing water facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 81 p.s.i. to a minimum of 71 p.s.i. A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chu/a Vista and Su"ounding Areas Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department Re: Water Availibility Case No. IS-96-13 February 5, 1996 page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 639. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY rt J ,Vj7f-- '-- Jlmes L. Smyth Chief Engineer JLS:RC:le enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 22-8 map pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority Mr. Manuel Brambila 156 Spruce St. Chula Vista, CA 91911 k:\laurie\letters\\2952main.wat '.BO.J~.: J, IOU I~I. ". AC. I%~ g~::~B^,r'" :;;f1,;g :f. :Jjl\~~ 31~ 1 \ . ~~ 1=7 A~v_gk,~^,~L <'..U~ ~ 7~~'}J;ijf::::. :(,~j"jf~~(g~' ~ ." ~~LlI19': ~ .!! ~,,,JI ~. -~ ~ ~ HlEJ 0, ,- 0 ~lI13"I"A~~'~I"~" 0 ~. ~ J ;;. ' ,J" I~ MO}/r ~ )' ~fL-"';, . ~ ~ ~ I '\J '" , I A~. '" I ~I I I I ~ U~ ""'0 ~. ,HI . W.O'IAI296.2 'I .. I ~ 6- A.C. '74 - 11042 ~"nrrmTi'l t" ~ :~~O~'~ ~ _ t~"RE' wo."," ... ';"J::.O. ..~_ 0 /~ ~ ~ ~~ ': ~ . ~ ~ w.~'" ~.' ~ =,,~ m- 33867 .0.11<'(" 48 ; R I~ 0 ~ = ' ~ aTAV .Z7 ~ ; ~ Ie ~ 2 ~i ~ MONITGOt\FR2 Y~~ I " I - r-~ I III ' JL~~~C (74 I ~~ '~.'I:<.~ ....., ~O".IO" A..C. '811 w.O. J..12116J N ~ .- .0 .r~ .0 '",iI! , '.3 4:'0' I ~ ('Y') ~ ~g~~; !'-c) "'=t:';:; ri ~ ~ i .E: N~:::' ~ c ~o N ro t: d N~ :>,.9 ~ u "" ~ ~ "~ :. c c; ~c; 6 Q) ;;; Ii: '" :~ ~ ~ (,' . ...:3 ~ C~ 0 ~ ~ .~~ ~~.~ 1. ~II (/) OL n.D(L)'!1~ ~ 1-....> . U'~ c ~ :f ,...,~. ~.. , ,0 _ ~ : ' · Om:T FlP N .9 C:;j~ ~ '"" .ro~.:::: · ~.. ~ 76 wo.t<:>.2.O: ~O. wo'. _. (/) "" ",,0. 0 ' ''; o. . ' ' C . 'CJ<'.'" .oJ ::J <:" =10. 0/ :.~ M A I ~ "'F-,..".':"~3 : ~ , ".':<j.'. .:~'-1 '1--;;' ,~..'~. L ti\ N ~ ;';'f;;';'i"", I ~ ~ ....LOwrR(.I30', ~ \'.; r-\ n · \l...,.. :- ST. c.w.~ .:.j "D. I it ..,., ..... '.r..Y. - . LJ r'~' '" '.' G ..,,, I . "--L... ,II G.Y. . I 2660'- '-".I: ' .. ~ ~ 0 U C · G.V. '73 x,."" . .. ::;!-;o 0 q, 'i.: i2 I ,/ fl' A.C. . CJIo ,10) -.. '.~;;....: .~o.. ~_."J0 ~ 9 ; r ~~:~ (' c;:;,~::I; '2 ~. : ~ . ~~ v' 1...' .J 50 _!! ~ ~ "'~ ,""': .-. ,J .... .~ .:.:::- ~ 0 0~ () 0 L..., '...:.... ~ 0 ~ 16 (;{j -- I N N z o i= v '''' V3 w --' << U V3 <:t - - ~ - o . " 3 , , . 7 . 15 .. " -~~ _'</ ~~ ~jJ F ~ n 2 wi' , J I i ~~ '0 8. pv ~' ~~ 48 ,..--- ~ ~ N M " ! 1'1 I ~ a . 8 ~ ~ s~ ~ ~Q " f-: (/) () n ~ Ii SJ2>DIVI5 ON R ~ ~ ~ .. .. . I P ~ In _!! zff\ I I I )1' " ~I.~;; 9 ~~r"'t' I') _12""Q~~ ~ 27 ~ 22 ~.48 ~ICON ~ <i. . I 0-"10" I ~~N .. - U I I ,..--.If\.. ...... OJ TH:~ ~~ I ~, '" ~ ~~ r, -8 i g. J I I' iK 1,. W.O.1I87~ '74.11.... ACQ. av '0 I 57f~' ... IRED.' ~ ~ ' EEr ~~M .:'y- 1'-"" I ".. ~:~~: ~11~~ I a , ~ IT; J!/ofI ~ : .~ Iii I--~r !,! m ~ .'.r ~4 WC.""~ ,. SI I r;.... ~ J2-..F:V. iJ" q-S/..O.o: ~ 0"'5ET "TTI~ \ "".1'}. 11659 o 0- 1':6 =- ~Q .> If) ot/2.,.. = ... Ib t) Q ~ ~ - .... ~ :t MAP ...., .~ ~:~. ~CJIo u, =~~-i' I... W"IU"b1 , '" ". SI-E z 3 5 ~ 6 ~~ / .~~" ~ -' ~ r-. 9~" -t'" (j ;;~ ~ \D~ ., ~ .. ~ ~~ PROJECT ~. if'i'<I to~ ~~ I .lw" G)~'1 O)!II 'b '"~ " , !< c a ~ ~ " ~ ~ .oj oj ~ I.i ~ in ~, .1 ~ " , U) .!J ..,.u..,.. ~ WO.II~~ ~ .. ;., ~~>:J&~ ~ w.o. AgO..1 o ~ '7 7 6 9 10 " 16 , .--.,.-- .. e"G.V. ~G.\l r 1~C;G'- . !" . m ~ ~ ~ o '" 1- .. <.i .. , ,'G.v. . I" , 6-.1" II RED. ,0 ~ 0) . ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~- 0 . NO O' <: 2.<03 o ~ o IZ 13 -, .- THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of cenain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all perrons have a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. }I\\\.",~ e.L. \^^f f'--( t:/i')"-~ ~b\l-c... ~-AvY'\bLA 2. If any perron identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any perron identified pursuant to (1) 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. 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? VIp 5. Please identify each and every 'person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent y~.for~ the City in this matter, 0J(\llrJ::w:J ~la>1V at'6JV \. ).(,. ) 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contribut~ ~ore than $1,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No ~lf yes, state which Council member(s): . Person is defmed as: -Any individual, firm, co-partDcrsmp, joint veDDJrc, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, b'Ust, receiver. syndicate, this and any other county, city and county. city, municipality, district or othcrpolitical subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. - (NOTE, Auach additional pag.s as aeceswy) /l1b~ Date: (2-G? -0t? Print or type name of contractor/applicant WPC,F,\HOME\PLANNJNGISTORED\I02I-A.~Rer. 1020.93)(Ref. 1022.93) Page 11