Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/11/20 REVISED AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m Wednesday, November 20, 2002 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA CALL TO ORDER: Hall Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Horn ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-01, PCS 02-09, GPA 03-01; Request to amend the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development (GDP) to eliminate the floating elementary school site from the Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area and modify the Otay Ranch GDP dwelling unit allocations within Village Five and Village One West. This item will be heard on the December 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for construction of an industrial complex at 3441 Main Street in the Southwest Redeyelopment Area Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development Specialist 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution ofthe Planning Commission ofthe City of Chula Vista approving the Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger and authorizing submittal of the Preliminary Plan Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development Specialist ,_..._.~._..____.".___...~_.______________...___~,u..._____..____" Planning Commission - 2- November 20, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-49; Conditional Use Permit to allow a Home Finding Center as an interim use of the San Miguel Ranch Community Purpose Facility Site. Trimark Pacific Homes. Project Manager: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 00-20; Zoning Ordinance Amendment proposing to amend Section 19.04, 19.20, 19.22, 19.24, and 19.48; and add Section 19.58.022 to the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide local provisions for accessory second dwelling units within the City of Chula Vista. Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m Wednesday, November 20, 2002 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA CALL TO ORDER: Hall Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Hom ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for construction ofan industrial complex at 3441 Main Street in the Southwest Redevelopment Area Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Devopment Specialist 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution ofthe Planning Commission ofthe City of Chula Vista approving the Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger and authorizing submittal of the Preliminary Plan Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Devopment Specialist 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-49; Conditional Use Permit to allow a Home Finding Center as an interim use of the San Miguel Ranch Community Purpose Facility Site. Trimark Pacific Homes. Project Manager: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner Planning Commission - 2- November 20, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 00-20; Zoning Ordinance Amendment proposing to amend Section 19.04, 19.20, 19.22, 19.24, and 19.48; and add Section 19.58.022 to the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide local provisions for accessory second dwelling units within the City of Chula Vista. Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 11/20/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for construction of an industrial complex at 3441 Main Street in the Southwest Redevelopment Area a) Resolution recommending approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03- 003 and Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for construction of an industrial complex at 3441 Main Street in the Southwest Redevelopment Area BACKGROUND The McMahon Development Group is proposing to acquire the 10.45-acre site at 3441 Main Street to construct an industrial complex consisting of three office, manufacturing, and warehousing buildings, which make up approximately 153,000 square feet of space. Other improvements to the site include the associated parking lots, landscaped areas, zoning walls, and loading docks. The proposed project is being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation of a Precise Plan, which will be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency for final approval. The Community Development Department.s Planning and Environmental Manager conducted the environmental review pursuant to CEQA requirements and determined that the project as proposed will not have significant negative impacts and prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-003. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Resource Conservation Commission, at its meeting of October 14, 2002, reviewed Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-003 and unanimously recommended its adoption to the Redevelopment Agency. The Design Review Committee, at its meeting of November 4. 2002, reviewed the proposed Project. and unanimously recommended its approval to the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold the required public hearing and take public testimony, if any; 2. Approve the Resolution recommending adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-003 and approval of Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for the Project. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of a 1 0.45-acre parcel located at 3441 Main Street in the southern portion of the City of Chula Vista (See attached locator map). The property is rectangular in shape, and bounded on three sides by currently developed property including single-family residential uses to the west and across Main Street. The southern property line borders the flood plain fringe of the Otay River. An auto dismantler operation and a Peak Load Power Plant occupy the property to the east. The Otay River Valley is designated as a habitat preserve by the Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The Developer proposes to divide the 10.45-acre site into two parcels, the northern-most one (Parcel A) with approximately 6.31 acres and the southern-most (Parcel B) with an approximately 4.13 acres. The site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. which purpose is to remove blighting infiuences. encourage and facilitate redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels, and improve the area as a whole. The proposed development Project will support and implement the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment I Plan and will contribute to the development and improvement of the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Project DescriDtion The project consists of the construction of three buildings, designated as "A", "B", and "C". These buildings are to provide office, manufacturing, and warehouse facilities for future tenants (see attached design plans). The proposed site development information is as follows: Lot area Building "A" First Floor Building "A" Second Floor Building "B" First Floor Building "B" Second Floor Building "C" First Floor Building "C" Second Floor Total Buildinq Area 455,141 square feet 10.45 Acres 15,743 square feet 4,500 square feet Total 20,243 sq. feet 69,032 square feet 7,300 square feet Total 76,332 sq. feet 46,592 square feet 10,000 square feet Total 56,592 sq. feet 153.167 square feet The applicant proposes subdivide the 1 0.45-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel A will include building A and B; Parcel B will contain building C. The Applicant does not propose development within any sensitive wetland area. Project implementation will result in the removal of 0.01 acres (<400 sq. ft.) of coastal sage scrub. Proiect Specifications and DeveloDment Standards Parking Parcel A Parking Parcel B Set Backs Front Side Rear Provided 181 105 Required 181 102 Height 68 79 west 61 east 257 30-38 20 50 o 28 or 45 w 50 foot setback Associated discretionary actions include: 1) Approval of a Precise Plan 2) Design Review approval and; 3) Redevelopment Agency approval of all plans and environmental determinations including tentative parcel map to be submitted during the building permit process. Land Use Desi!jnations Existing and proposed Land Use Designations are as follows; General Plan Montgomery Specific Plan Zoning Existing Land Use Site Industrial Research & Limited Ind. Research & Manufacturing IL-P Vacant North Industrial Research & Limited Ind. Research & IL-P Commerciall Residential ~ Manufacturing South Open Space Parks & Open Space NIA Otay River Valleyl City of San Diego East Industrial Research & Limited Ind. Research & Manufacturing IL-P Open Storage Usesl Power Plant West LowlMedium LowlMed Residential Residential R-16-P Single Family Residences Precise Plan As noted earlier. the proposal requests a deviation from the height standard through the precise plan to allow building height to exceed 28 feet (as required for commercial and industrial buildings iocated adjacent to residential uses in the Montgomery Specific Plan). The intent of the 28-foot height limit in the Montgomery Specific Plan is to protect the adjacent residential dwellings from the potential visual and shadow impacts of high-walls. The underlying zoning (IL-P) allows a 45-foot height limit and requires a 50-foot setback when adjacent to residential properties. The three buildings proposed have setbacks of 79, 90, and 80 feet respectively from south to north from the adjacent residential property. These setbacks mitigate any potential visual impacts (as shown in the site plan's detail drawings) from the proposed building height (30' for building A, 32' for Building B, and 38' for building C) beyond the height permitted by the Montgomery Specific Plan. All other development standards are met or exceeded with this application. Potential environmental impacts from this site mainly deal with noise, either to the sensitive residential receptors to the west or the sensitive biological receptors to the south. The site plan identifies a sound wall on the residential boundary, and the project has been conditioned to conduct sound studies to determine potential impacts and determine the necessary mitigation, as well as document impacts to the south to determine necessity of potential mitigation to biological receptors. CONCLUSION: Staff, the Resources Conservation Commission, and the Design Review Committee recommends approval of the proposed Precise Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration for all of the reasons stated above. The Precise Plan requires that specific findings be made for the deviation listed under the proposal and are stated within the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution document along with the proposed conditions of approval. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Proposed Project Drawings .3 I ~'ffi' . 0 []]][]][B'.' ~ :BffiffiJ 1811- MULTI hB MOBllEI [[[JJJ[illJ . l . F c !lllJ =3 EB F ;: fAMilY "'I ~O ""',ESTATES DIJJJJI[][]' ~ MULTI m~!::=: == = : j cr;;@ l!lm:rn ~~~? i; ~ f- rn m ' I [H[:~~tmE= BillJ:E ~ ~ bmDJvGID~; EBo ,,\\\ 11\\\\ B1ITLdlrn --Ail II1I11111 II. n~~ CJIIEJ 111" I I ITIIJI[[]]JJ OIIJI[[[IJ , I JWJ = illllllll !TIIII ~1 I i;; Q CJlTlTrTn mITIIl1illTINT ST I=- '" II 171 (::C. 7y' g ~ Q Lw..iulu ~ I I DJJJII!IIJ ~ I-\::::: I i:= ,....~;;, ~ FM\ILY E ~\ ~ "i ~ IDWElllNGJlIJ;fIIJI]] [[[[]][I]] I ----1 I E3 = .J...., ITDJJJJ~III IllliJ ~I" ~ OTAY (7\~ IT TImll DiTfllTTI ' WWlJJlJllJ ElEMEI-ITARY J .LUWJ ~ ST II ITIl i pmrnm~, SCHOOl -- I. H:fm HitB hlR1~~!I! I ~ MAIN STREET ~ r IUlVJ i~~111 m ~~ I~~' e- I ~\ f- = ~ UE m ~~S~;: BRITT,,!. ST TRUCK FOURlr AV l- i I ~~I\ III I ~.#~ WASH AUTO I // , ECYCUI-iC ~ I CENTER I --- CITY OF CHULA VISTA . ~ COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -- J & C AUTO WRECKE I o ~ ~ ~ 15 > Z ~: ;Ji II ~ ~1 g OJ z t, is U' U - PROJECT LOCATIONL ~ -\ V ACN'>I LOTS 11111'/ 1\ / III1111111 III/ 111.Jrrr.:...- I I 8RTRFRFRFFI~rrlll 1II1 liT II 1tfBt C HULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~G~~: McMAHON DEVELOPMENT GROUP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (!) PROJECT ADDRESS: 3441 MAIN STREET SCALE: FILE NUMBER; NORTH No Scale 1S-03..QQ3; DRC-;03-Q<4; PCM-0344 'f RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-03-003 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVE PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-04 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AT 3441 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, on JulyI6, 2002, a duly verified application was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by Mr. Jeff Wissler representing the McMahon Development Group (Developer"), requesting approval of Design Plans DRC-03-04 and Precise Plan PCM-03-04 for the construction of an industrial complex, consisting of three office, manufacturing and warehousing buildings and the associated parking, landscaping and fencing improvements ("Project) at the site located 3441 Main Street within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, the site which is subject matter of this Resolution consists of approximately 10.45 acres in area, is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and commonly known as 3441 Main Street located on the south side of Main Street between Third Avenue and Hilltop Drive ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department's Environmental Review Coordinator determined that, although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared which must be considered by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03-003) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project's environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the permittee/Project applicant, and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation Monitoring Program; and, WHEREAS the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on November 13, 2002, as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings, as set forth in its recommending Resolution herein, and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project based on certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as adyertised, namely 6:00 p.m., November 13,2002, 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 recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Redevelopment Agency. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of November 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Russ Hall, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary J:\Commdev\Tapia\Projects\3441 Main Street\Planning Commission Reso.doc [I 1/06/2002 3:50 PM] DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (A) ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-03-003) (8) GRANTING A PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-04); AND (C) APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MCMAHON DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT THAT INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 153,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, MANUFACTURING, AND WAREHOUSE SPACE AT 3441 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel, which is the subject matter ofthis resolution, is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 10.45 acres of land located at 3441 Main Street ("Project Site"). B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on July 16, 2002 a duly verified application for a Precise Plan (PCM 03-04) with request to the Project Site was filed by McMahon Development ("Applicant") with the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the project requests a deviation from the Montgomery Specific Plan to allow a construction to occur above the 28 foot height limit prescribed for properties adjacent to residential development, and C. Project Description WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct an office, manufacturing, and warehouse with approximately 153,000 square feet of space; and D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an Initial Study, such study (IS 03-003) was prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review; and E. Planning Commission and Design Review Committee Record on Application WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the Project on November 4, 2002 and voted 4-0-0-1 and the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on November 20, 2002 on the Project and voted ; and 7 WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity. convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the Project, and that the approval of Precise Plan PCM-03-04 and granting of said height increase does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses; and F. Redevelopment Agency Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on November 19, 2002 to consider the recommendation ofthe RCC, Planning Commission, and Design Review Committee regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Precise Plan, and Owner Participation Agreement and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office ofthe Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency approving the construction ofthe industrial project, located at 3441 Main, depicted in Exhibit A of the Owner Participation Agreement and subject to conditions listed in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their meeting on this project held on and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the Negative Declaration on IS 03-003 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA The Redevelopment Agency finds that Negative Declaration on IS-03-003 reflects the independent judgment of the Agency of the City of Chula Vista. V. PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS The Redevelopment Agency of the City Df Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the Agency's rules and regulations for the issuance of a Precise Plan, as herein below set forth and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record that permits the stated findings to be made. ~ A. That such plan 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 proposed use is not detrimental in light of the surrounding auto dismantlers and other open storage uses in the vicinity. The 28-foot rule governing height limit when adjacent to residential property was an attempt to limit the deleterious effects of dissimilar uses where no side yard setbacks are prescribed and where oftentimes lots are not more than 50' in width. Implicit therefore in the Montgomery Specific Plan is the potential that a higher than 28-foot tall building could be located adjacent to a private residence potentially intruding on the expected privacy ofthe occupants. The standards for the development of the subject property imposed by the City's zoning ordinance are a more sophisticated inclusive concept that contemplated properties with sufficient area to allow well planned clean industrial development to co-locate adjacent to residential development, and requires a minimum 50 foot setback from any residential property. The project exceeds that standard, with building setbacks of 80 feet for building A, 90 feet for building B, and 79 feet for building C. The potential visual and shadow impacts of these heights on the adjacent residential dwellings is adequately mitigated by the proposed building setbacks. All other development and performance standards are in place. Requirements for mitigation of potential noise impacts are a condition of the approval. B. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying district as set forth in Section 19.56.041. Section 19.56.041 sets out four principles, one of which must be applicable to the proposed project before the Precise Plan modifying district may be applied. Section B goes on to describe, "The property or area to which the P modifying district is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses, and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise be incompatible". The subject site is zoned Light Industrial, while the adjacent properties are residential. The use of the Precise Plan satisfies the principles of Section 19.56.041. C. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P precise plan modifying district. The project is in accord with all of the development standards of the underlying zoning and it is solely the Montgomery Specific Plan that requires the use of the Precise Plan. However consideration of the intent and circumstance of the inception of the Montgomery Specific Plan as described in A above provide the necessary warrant for exception. D. That the approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of the city. The Project is in substantial conformance with the Land Use Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and the Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation of q Industrial. The proposed project is Light Industrial, which is a use permitted by the General Plan, the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. VI. CITY COUNCILlREVElOPMENT AGENCY FINDINGS The City Council and Agency hereby find that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the Project, and does not adversely affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-003 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEQA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof; the project shall assist with the elimination of blight in the Project Area. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner Participation Agreement with the McMahon Development forthe construction of an industrial project at 3441 Main Street, in the form presented and in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed below. 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and McMahon Development. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. VII. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby grant Precise Plan PCM-03-04 and approve the project subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: A. Ensure that the proposal complies with the use outlined in the application and material submitted therewith except as modified below: 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the character sketches of typical industrial office, manufacturing and warehouse buildings provided along with the conceptual plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, and landscaping on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. II> 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Condition of Approval shall be submitted for Director of Planning and Building review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code; all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., as well as trash enclosure facilities, shall be located out of public view or adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, andlor landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 6. All roof appurtenances. including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment andlor projections shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as well as from on-site resident views above or across the site as required by the Director of Planning and Building. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Details shall be on building plans. 7. All gutters, downspouts and vents must be integrated into the roof and wall systems, to ensure that there will be no unattractive appendages to the elevations presented for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building. 8. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Municipal Code regarding graffiti control. 9. The conceptual landscape plans shall be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by the City Landscape Planner. The revision should include the following: add additional planter formation or layering of plants within the screening parking lot planting area along Main Street, Provide accent trees at both driveway entrances. Landscape and irrigation plans (to include a water management plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Planner and brought back to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The building permit plans shall comply with 2001 Building (UBC), Plumbing (UPC), Mechanical (UMC), and National Electrical Code (NEC). Plans shall also comply with 2001 Title 24 California Code of Regulations energy and disabled access requirements. Show dimensions of separation between buildings and show assumed property lines on building plans. A separate building permit shall be required for sign age and lighting. II 11. A technical report may be required by the Fire Department at time of building permit plan check depending on specific use of buildings, and additional hydrants may be required at that time 12. Complete and sign Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Guide (RSWPG) prior to issuance of building permit. The Detail Site Plan for the enclosure shall incorporate features listed on the RSWPG. Add following to site plan detail for enclosures: flat reinforced concrete pad in front, metal doors independently hinged from masonry walls, slope ratio, 8" curb. Detail Site Plan shall be provided prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. A grading permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department, including the utilization of components that will address access control, surveillance detection, and police response. This shall be done prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 15. The Applicant shall submit a parcel map as a requirement of this approval. The map may require additional dedications. A reciprocal parking and access easement, to be reviewed and approved by City staff, will be a requirement of this approval. 16. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall pay all Engineering Division fees including but not limited to sewer capacity and connections, development impact for public facilities, and traffic signal fees prior to issuance of building permits. 17. A geotechnical investigation/soils study will be required along with the improvement plans to provide information addressing the erosion potential of the site as well as foundation recommendations prior to issuance of building permits. 18. The parking lot design shall be for two-way traffic flow. Show the typical dimensions for aisle width, stall to curb. stall width, and parking stall angle. Appropriate markings and signage shall be added to direct traffic flow at each aisle. The design shall incorporate ADA requirements for parking and accessibility. The parking plan shall be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. 19. According to the NPDES Permit, Order NO. 2001-01, the project is a priority development project due to its location adjacent to the Otay River Valley, and it is required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans and numeric sizing criteria of the plan. In addition, the project is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of the storm drainage systems, both during and after construction. Adjacent storm drain inlets shall be protected at all times during construction of the new building and improvements. A drainage study will be required along with the improvement plans and include information addressing the measures that will be implemented to reduce storm water runoff to pre-development flow rates at the outlet of the site. The drainage study shall be provided for review prior to issuance of building permits. I~ 20. Identify and clearly label the existing sewer and the proposed sewer lines that will serve the project, and show the connection to the existing sewer line on the required improvement plans to be provided for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 21. While no sensitive species were observed within the proposed project boundaries the City has a Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. If the project proceeds under the City's Subarea Plan, the project proponent would have to wait until the City is given "take authority" by the USF&WS and CDFG to remove approximately 400 square feet of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The project would be regulated under the City's Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance, which is currently being prepared. The HUT Ordinance would include provisions to authorize the "take" of Diegan coastal sage scrub. The applicant would be required to obtain a HUT permit from the City. The HUT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated and will contain limitations on grading during the gnatcatcher breeding season If the proponent opts to proceed prior to the City receiving "take authority" from USF&WS and CDFG, Applicant shall obtain "take authority" directly from those agencies through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. Prior to issuance of grading permit or final map, the applicant shall: a). The embankment immediately south of the development area if planted, shall only be planted in native sage scrub plant species indigenous to the adjacent Otay River floodplain. b). The adjacent floodplain area immediately south of the embankment shall be placed into dedicated biological open space. c.) Project lighting shall not be directed southward into this biological open space habitat. d.) Project construction noise standards shall comply with Item d. (Noise), Priority 1, Draft adjacency guidelines for the Subarea Plan. e.) Obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) permit from the City of Chula Vista for the Diegan coastal sage scrub. The HUT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio inside the MSCP Preserve or at a 1.5:1 ratio outside the MSCP preserve. f) Obtain "take" authorization for the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub from the USF&WS and the CDFG through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. 22. To avoid noise impacts to neighbors, no outdoor public address system shall be permitted. 23. No catering vehicles shall be allowed to provide service on the western side of the proposed buildings. {'3 24. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy noise testing shall be accomplished for activities/operations (indoor and outdoor including trucking operations) associated with all proposed buildings in order to assess the project site development compliance with local municipal regulations related to noise. If testing indicates noncompliance, sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated by the applicant/property owner as recommended by the noise report to bring the activitiesloperation into compliance. 25. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, noise control measures for both short term (construction) and long term impacts will be required for the California Gnatcatcher's nesting season and for other riparian songbird species from February 15 to August 15. 26. A landscape plan for the area south of development approved by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for approval prior to the commencement of construction. The plan shall include non-invasive vegetation that: Does not require permanent irrigation. and is compatible with the coastal sage scrub habitat south of the development area. All landscaping shall be in place prior to the end of construction. 27. The applicant shall contact the local water district to determine the additional demand and alteration to the existing water systems for domestic and/or fire protection purposes. In addition, irrigation plans may need to be designed to reclaimed water standards and specifications. All fees and deposits shall be provided at the building permit stage. 28. Standard school fees developments shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Contact the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. 29. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source that the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 30. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 31. Applicant shall comply with all conditions and provisions of Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-03-003 and the Mitigation Monitoring Report. IX. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the It Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency shall indicate the property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license. be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the Redevelopment Agency. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative of McMahon Development Group, Inc. Date X. INDEMINIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City/Agency, its members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims. costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City/Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's/Agency's approval and issuance of this Precise Plan and Owner Participation Agreement, (b) City'sIAgency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing the Agreement of this Precise Plan and Owner Participation Agreement where indicated. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Precise Plan and Owner Participation Agreement and this provision shall be binding on any and all Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. XI. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The Redevelopment Agency directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the City Clerk. XII. 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 term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Chris Salomone Community Development Director John M. Kaheny City Attorney I~ Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: McMahon Development PROJECT LOCATION: 3441 Main Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 629-062-02-00 PROJECT APPLICANT: McMahon Development Group CASE NO.: IS-03-003 DATE: October 4,2002 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a lOA5-acre parcel located at 3441 Main Street in the southern portion of the City of Chula Vista (See Figure I). The property is rectangular in shape, and bounded on three sides by currently developed property including single-family residential uses to the southwest and across Main Street. The southern property line borders the flood plain fringe of the Otay River. An auto dismantler operation and a Peaker Power Plant occupy the property to the east. The Otay River Va1ley is designated as a habitat preserve by the Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). According to a biological site assessment prepared by Merkel & Associates, dated February 27,2002, the entire site is primarily comprised of disturbed lands. The site has been graded and/or brushed almost throughout, but sti1l retains some limited wetlands in the floodplain of the Otay River Va1ley along the southerly boundary (about 0.08 acres). The report indicates that besides these limited wetland resources, and a miniscule area of Diegan Coastal Sage scrub (0.05 acres) found in the extreme southeastern comer, no native vegetation habitats are present. Two sensitive shrubs occur in limited numbers near the southern property boundary associated with wetlands; several San Diego Marsh-elder (I va hayesiana) and one Southwestern Spiny Rush (June us acutus). No sensitive animal.species were observed by the biologists and given the current scarcity of vegetation on-site, no significant sensitive animals are expected to be resident on the property. B. Project Description The project consists of the construction of three buildings, designated as "A", "B", and "C". These buildings are to provide office, manufacturing, and warehouse facilities for future tenants. The proposed site development information is as fo1lows: If, J 0104/02 Lot area Building "A" First Floor Building "A" Second Floor Building "B" First Floor Building "B" Second Floor Building "C" First Floor Building "C" Second Floor Total Building Area 455,141 square feet 10.45 Acres 15,743 square feet 4,500 square feet Total 20,243 sq. feet 69,032 square feet 7,300 square feet Total 76,332 sq. feet 46,592 square feet 10,000 square feet Total 56,592 sq. feet 153,167 square feet The applicant does not propose development within any sensitive wetland area. Proj ect implementation will result in the removal 0.01 acres (<400 sq. ft.) of coastal sage scrub. Associated discretionary actions include: I) Approval of a Precise Plan 2) Design Review approval and; 3) City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency approval of all plans and environmental determinations including tentative parcel map. C. Complianc"e with Zoning and Plans The proposed use is consistent v.;ith the ILP (Light Industrial Precise Plan) zone and General Plan Limited Industrial designation. D. Public Comments On July 23, 2002 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners \\ithin a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period ended August 5, 2002. Two public comments were received by telephone. Both were from nearby residents who were happy to see that new development would be occurring on' a vacant piece of land currently associated \\ith numerous nuisances including street noise and fugitive dust. Environmental issues have been addressed in the attached checklist. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce noise and visual impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts to biological resources are discussed below and include mitigation for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Enyironmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project 'will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts q 2 10104/02 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 0.0 I-acre (400 square feet.) ofDiegan coastal sage scrub (CSS) a vegetation community considered sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Merkel and Associates completed a biological survey of the project and the surrounding area on February 27, 2002. No sensitive species were observed within the proposed project boundaries. The City has a Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. If the project proceeds under the City's Subarea Plan, the project proponent would have to wait until the City is given "take authority" by the USFWS & CDFG. The project would be regulated under the City's Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance, which is currently being prepared. The HUT Ordinance would include proyisions to authorize the "take" of Diegan coastal sage scrub. The applicant would be required to obtain a HUT permit from the City. The HUT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated and will contain limitations on grading during the gnatcatcher breeding season. If the proponent opts to proceed prior to the City receiving "take authority" from USFWS & CDFG, they will be required to obtain "take authorization" directly from the USFWS & CDFG through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. Prior to issuance of grading permit or final map, the applicant shall: I.) The embankment immediately south of the development zone (an existing fence on the north side already defines this boundary) if planted, shall only be planted in native sage scrub plant species indigenous to the adjacent Otay River floodplain. 2.) The adjacent floodplain area immediately southward of this embankment shall be placed into dedicated biological open space. 3.) Project lighting shall not be directed southward into this biological open space habitat. 4.) Hardscape rainfall run-off shall be designed to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National Pollution Discharge & Elimination System (NPDES) standards. 5.) Project construction noise standards shall comply with Item d: (Noise), Priority I, Draft adjacency guidelines for the Subarea Plan. 6.) Obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HILT) permit from the City of Chula Vista for the Diegan coastal sage scrub. The HILT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated at a ]: I ratio (0.01 acres) inside the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve or at a 1.5: I (0.02 acres) ratio outside the MSCP Preserve; or 3 iy 10104/02 7.) Obtain "take" authorization for the Diegan coastal sage scrub from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. NOISE Noise control measures are required as follows: I.) All roof-mounted exterior air conditioner system components or any noise generating equipment shall be shielded behind a parapet wall equal in height to the top of the tallest AlC or similar equipment unit. 2.) To avoid noise impacts to neighbors, no outdoor public address (PA) system shall be permitted. 3.) No catering vehicles shall be allowed on the western side of the proposed building. 4.) Noise testing shall be accomplished for activities/operations (indoor & outdoor including trucking operations) associated with all proposed buildings in order to assess that the project site development is in compliance \vith local municipal regulations related to noise. If testing indicates noncompliance, sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated by the applicant/property owner as recommended by the noise report to bring the activities/operation into compliance. 5.) Noise control measures for both short term (construction) and long term impacts will be required for the Califomia Gnatcatcher's nesting season and for other riparian songbird species from February 15 to August 15. Building "C" is located approximately 260 feet from the southerly property line which is the area closest to the Otay River area. If noise testing accomplished in particular for activities/operations (indoors & outdoors including trucking operations) associated with building "C" which is closest to the Otay River area assess that the project site development is not in compliance with local, state and federal regulations related to noise, the project shall implement noise attenuation measures as recommended by the noise report that bring the project into compliance. AESTHETICS I.) The roof equipment shall be screened as conceptuallyshov,TI on the site plan and is subject to review and approval by the Planning & Environmental Services Manager prior to the commencement of constru~tion. 2.) A landscape plan approved by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for approval prior to the commencement of construction. The plan shall include non-invasive vegetation that: . Does not require permanent irrigation; and · Is compatible with the coastal sage scrub habitat south of the development area. {if 4 10/04/02 3.) Project proponent shall install landscaping prior to the completion of construction in accordance with approved landscape plans. Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment" A"). I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this 'ti atedff gative ~c1 ati1~ (){4 ( , I 0 _ 0'1-- 02- ame, Title Date G. Consultation I. City of Chula Vista: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Mary Ladiana, Environmental Projects Mavager, Planning Division Maria Muett, Associate Planner, Environmental Section Doug Perry, Fire Chief Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department Gary Williams, Planning Division Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department Frank Rivera, Engineering Department Frank Herrera-A, Planning Division 2. Libby Lucas, California Department of Fish & Game 3. Hector Martinez, Sweetwater Authority 4. Ken Waite, City of San Diego, Wastewater section Applicant's Agent: Jeff Wissler 5. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997 Merkel & Associates, Inc., Biological Site Assessment of 10.439 ac. site on 3441 Main Street, February 27, 2002. GeoTek, Inc., Geotechnical Report, August 12, 1999, October I, 1999. Douglas Eilar & Associates, Acoustical and Environmental Consulting, Noise Impact Analysis for 3441 Main Street, July 10,2002 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., P. Geotechnical Inyestigation, 3441 Main Street, June 17,2002 P&D Environmental Services, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 3441-3443 Main Street, June 24, 1999. City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, September 11, 2000 5 ~ 10/07/02 Initial Studv 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 information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~~':;z- Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Services Manager .1.( 6 Date: J D-04--cn- 10/04/0} Case No.IS-03-003 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: McMahon Development Group 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 380 Stevens Ayenue, Suite 313 Solana Beach,CA 92075 (858) 350-0200 4. Name of Proposal: McMahon Development 5. Date of Checklist: October 4, 2002 Potenlially Sipllncanl 1m,pact Pocernially SiinUlCant Ua"" Mitipted 1...c:o>sthlD SIpifk2al Impad No Im_ 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? o o o Cj! o o o Cj! o o o Cj! o o o Cj! Comments: The project site consists of a vacant lO.4S-acre parcel located at 3441 Main Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA. The property is composed of one legal parcel (APN 629-062-02) with a 354 ft, frontage along Main Street. The parcel is approximately 1,28S in length. On-Site Land Use The site is currently vacant of all structures. There are no agricultural uses in the area. Surrounding Land Uses The properties to the north and west are single-family residential uses. The properties to the east consist of auto storage and wrecking yard and a Peaker Electrical Power Plant. The Otay River is loca ted along the property's southern boundary. Project DescriptiDn ~:L The proposed industrial/office/warehouse use is consistent with the ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) Zoning District and the Limited Industrial General Plan designation. " .._.... ...._o>,.._.~ ,. ~'.'_.'.""___'_,_,_"_,__,, _, __'_'~'_"_'_'__"_'__. , f\ 111 I n')__~ Mitigation: None II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Would the 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated No Impact Less than Signifiaut hnp.llct o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 Comments: Implementation of the project would create employment opponunides consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designation for the site. No significant population or housing impacts would result from constructing an industrial/warehouse facility in the south bay area. Mitigation: None III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable eanh conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, Dr similar hazards? o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o 181 o Comments:Soils - Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. conducted a geotechnical evaluation of the site. The evaluation concludes that there are no known geophysical conditions present that expose people to geologic or earth hazards. No active or potentially active surface faults are known to exist on the site and tperefore no significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Finish grading required &\.,3 2 10/7/02 Potentially PotentiaUy Sil:J1ifkan( Lesslhan Significant Unless Sign..ilkant No Impact Mitigated Impact 1mpact for the project is estimated to consist of 30,000 cubic yards of earthwork. Only 8.5 acres of the project site will be graded. The existing on-site drainage pattern is basical1y southerly towards the Otay River. The existing drainage swale is part of the City of Chula Vista storm drain system that conveys runoff from north of Main Street to the Otay River. The existing storm drain system would remain in its current condition with no alterations. The Engineering Department, as a standard requirement of grading permit approval, will require the submittal of a soils report with the first submittal of the Improvement/Grading Plans and cDmpliance with the applicable report recommendations. Mitigation: None IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of slirface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 o o o 1'1 Comments: The existing on-site drainage pattern is basically southerly towards the Otay River. The existing drainage . swale is part of the City of Chula Vista storm drain system that conveys runoff from north of Main Street to the Otay River. The existing storm drain system would remain in its current condition with no alterations. The applicant would be required by the Engineering Department, as part of their plan review, to show that the post development flow rate for a given design storm does not exceed the pre-devlopment flow rate at the outlet of the property, and 1i1at the development will not increase erosion potential downstream of the site. The southerly portion of the site has been identified by the City Eo.gineering Department as being the lOO-year flood zone. However, project development is not proposed for this area. As a standard engineering cDndition, the applicant would be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Additionally, in accordance with the City's National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) ~ 3 10/7/02 PotentlaUy Potentially Significant 1.= 1naJl Significaol Unless SIgnificant No hnpad Mitigated lmpad Impad Permit, the project applicant will be required to comply with adopted standard urban storm water mitigation plans and numeric sizing criteria as administered by the City's Engineering Department. No significant impacts to water resources have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non, stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District is attainment for all air emissions. The site is zoned and general planned for industrial development. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts not previously analyzed would result from this project. Mitigation: None V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? Mitigation: None VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) ~ o o o IiII o IiII o o o IiII o o o o IiII o o IiII o o o IiII o o o IiII o o 0 0 0 IiII 0 0 0 IiII 0 0 0 IiII 0 0 0 IiII o IiII o o o IiII o o 4 10/7/02 PotenwUy Signiflc3n1 Impact . Pocentia1ly Significant Unless MiHgatCil Less than Signirtc:lnt Impact No Impact Comments: The site has direct access to Main Street a designated four lane major arterial. No additional roadway facilities are required to serve the site. Short-term effects would consist of construction trucks. Long-term effects would consist of 1,422 trips per day. On-site parking will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Level of Service on Main Street will remain L,O,S "A". No traffic mitigation is required to reduce traffic impacts that may result from project implementatiDn. Mitigation: None VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 t;! 0 0 or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 t;! c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak 0 t;! 0 0 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 t;! pooI)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 t;! f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 t;! efforts? Comments: The proposed project design will have limited impacts to previously disturbed lands with minimal wildlife value, as confirmed by a recent biological study. Merkel & Associates, Inc. completed a biological survey of the project site on February 27, 2002. Additional information was prepared in response to City of Chula Vista staff comments. Essentially, no wetland impacts are proposed for this project. There are three discrete patches of sage scrub, totaling not more than 400 square feet (< 0.01 acre) that may be impacted. These small clusters of sage scrub are significantly separated from more substantial tracts of sage scrub in the Otay River floodplain to the south, and do not retain any significant habitat value. This very limited impact of less than 0.01 acre should not require separate NCCP 4(d) permitting for sage scrub take. This should meet de minimis minimum impact acreage requirements. This limited sage scrub impact will, however, require mitigation with the City ofChula Vista. To compensate for this limited loss (0.01 acres) of sage scrub, approximately 0.04 acres of sage scrub located in the extreme southeastern corner of the site is proposed to be placed in dedicated biological open space. As this cluster of sage scrub' is adjacent to protected high quality sage scrub within the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park, and is designated as "75% Preserve Area" in the draft Subarea Plan, suitable appropriate on-site mitigation is present. Pursuant to the Draft MSCP Chula Vista Subarea Plan (2000), the project site clearly does not lie within areas designated as 100% Habitat Preserve. Portions of the floodplain of the Otay River within the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park are designated as 75 % Preserve. Utilizing south of Alvoca Street as the boundary for this, results in a very small portion of the site being located within the floodp lain. The applicant does not propose development for this area. The project development will therefore be situated in close proximity, but not within the 75 % Preserve area. As a result, the project will be subject to . Adjacency Guidelines. ~ 5 10/7/02 Pntentially Potentially Signifianl Lesstban SignifICant Unless SignifKanl No Impact Mitigated Impact lmpact The Chula Vista Adjacency Guidelines for the Subarea Plan are divided into Priority I and Priority 2 categories. Where applicable, all new development is required to adhere to guidelines that deal with on- site drainage, toxic substances lighting, noise, invasives, buffers and dissemination of educational information to residents and landowners adjacent to Preserves to heighten environmental awareness. The proposed project can readily meet the City of Chula Vista adjacency guidelines. It can do so by complying with the following measures: Mitigation: Prior to issuance of grading permit or final map, the applicant shall do as follows: 1.) The embankment immediately south of the development zone (an existing fence on the north side already defines this boundary) if planted, shall only be planted in native sage scrub plant species indigenous to the adjacent Otay River floodplain. 2.) The adjacent floodplain area immediately southward of this embankment shall be placed into dedicated biological open space. 3.) Project lighting shall not be directed southward into this biological open space habitat. 4.) Hardscape rainfall run-off shall be designed to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National Pollution Discharge & Elimination System (NPDES) standards. 5.) Projecfconstruction noise standards shall comply with Item d. (Noise), Priority 1, Draft adjacency guidelines for the Subarea Plan. 6.) Obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HIL1) permit from the City ofChula Vista for the Diegan coastal sage scrub. The HILT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio (0.01 acres) inside the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve or at a 1.5: 1 (0.02 acres) ratio outside the MSCP Preserve; or 7.) Obtain "take" authorization for the Diegan coastal sage scrub from the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of fish and Game through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. No additional significant indirect biological impacts are expected as a result of project implementation. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 181 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 I!I protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The electrical power requirement of the proposed industrial project ';ill be consistent with energy conservation requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The site does not contain any known mineral resources. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: None IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ~ 1 6 o o I!I 10/7/02 Potentially Potentially SigJIllic.ant Ussthan SignifK::lnt u."" Signlncanl N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 0 0 plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources Df potentia] 0 0 0 0 health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard m areas with flammable 0 0 0 0 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Main Street is identified as an Evacuation Route in the City's General Plan (p.8-6). The proposal involving warehouse and industrial uses would not result in a significant impact to the City's emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan due to the relatively low number of employees. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be prepared if required in accord with the standard requirements of the County Department of Environmental Health. The Business Plan would identify emergency response coordination with the City's emergency responders and if any hazardous materials would be used in any of the industrial buildings, emergency drills, and associated training would also be included. If hazardous materials would be used in the proposed industrial buildings then, the applicants would be required by existing law involving the California Accidental Release Program (CaIARP) as administered by the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that identifies safety procedures, accident prevention, analysis of external events, and emergency response procedures. The RMP would identify the potential effects of accidental releases and design features to minimize risk. The proposed development would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Flammable brush, grass, and trees are not present on-site or on the adjacent properties. The project would not result in a significant fire hazard. The proposed project would not result in potential significant impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. Mitigation: None. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? o o o o b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o o o o Comments: The project site is surrounded by industrial uses to the east and residential uses to the west and north across Main Street. The adjacent area to the south is designated as "open space/habitat preserve." The City of Chula Vista Draft MSCP Subarea Plan indicates that excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas, induding temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be reduced during the breeding season of sensitive bird species. The applicable noise standards are: The City ofChula Vista Municipal Code (Sec. 19.68.030) noise standard for light industrial land use areas is 70dB during the hours of7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays (8:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends) and 70 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m..on weekdays (10:00 p.m. to 8:00a.m. weekends). ~~ 7. lO/7/n? Potentially Potendally Significant Less than SignlrlCJllIl Unless SigniflCaDt Nil Impact Mitigated impact Impact The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Sec. 19.68.030) noise standard for residential land use areas is 55 dB during the hours of 7:00a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends) and 45 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m. on weekdays (10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends). The City of Chula Vista Draft MSCP Subarea Plan states that, "Construction noise within 500 feet of an occupied nest for the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo and rap tors should not exceed 60 dB during the following periods: February 15 through August 15 for the coastal California gnatcatcher, March 1 through September15 for the least Bell's vireo, and December 1 through June 31 for raptors. If grading activities are proposed within 500 feet of an occupied nest identified in a pre-construction survey during the applicable breeding season(s), noise reduction techniques, such as temporary noise walls or berms, shall be incorporated into the construction plans to reduce noise levels below 60 dB Leq. Outside the bird breeding season(s), no restrictions shall be placed on temporary construction noise. Noise sources associated with the proposed project can be identified within four categories: (I) construction noise; (2) mobile noise sources, generally consisting of noise from cars and trUcks; (3) stationary mechanical equipment and (4) limited industrial land use operations. The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from its exterior noise level limitations. However, construction activities on early Saturday or Sunday morning or nighttime would be considered intrusive. Noise from construction activities will usually exceed typical background noise levels but will generally be for a short term and will generally occur during daytime hours on weekdays. Mobile noise sources after construction is completed will consist of operations, maintenance and employee vehicles that will contribute to the overall noise levels in the area. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared on July 10, 2002 for the proposed project by Douglas Eilar & Associates. The noise report indicates that vehic1es traveling at 25 miles per hour on the project driveway during the nighttime hours will create an hourly noise level of 40.3 dBA Leq at a location about 50 feet south of Main Street and 50 feet west of the driveway, and 40.2 dBA Leq at a location 150 feet south of Main Street and 50 feet west of the driveway. Project related vehicle noise levels will decrease as the distance from Main Street vehicle noise increases. A comparative analysis between the expected vehicle noise levels with the current Main Street vehicle noise levels shows that the project driveway noise will be significantly less than current Main Street traffic noise. Additionally, the report indicates that the construction of the proposed project buiJdings wil1 provide noise shielding for the adjacent residences from the Main Street roadway noise. Stationary Air Conditioning Equipment Rooftop-mounted equipment will include building air conditioner (A/C) units, with rooftop-mounted condensers. 'The unshielded'noise level at 70 feet from a rooftop-mounted A/C unit is 51.8 dBA Leq; the noise level at 70 feet is reduced to 26.7 dBA Leq if a parapet wall equal in height to the top of the A/C unit shields the unit. Four shielded AIC units, operating simultaneously, would produce a noise level of 32.7 dBA Leq. Delivery Freight Trucks Typical exhaust noise from a modern delivery/freight truck engine at full operating RPM, under load and with a good exhaust system is less than 70 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The height of the exhaust noise source ranges from less than 3 feet to 10 feet for tractor-traiJer trucks. The proposed loading/unloading areas neares.t to the residential neighborhoods are approximately 210 feet from the closest residential property line. The loading/unloading areas wil1 be blocked from direct line-of-sight to the residences by the industrial structures, thus providing a minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction. "', R ,n/7/n? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Signilicant Unless Mitigated Less than Signiftcanl Impact No Impact Stationary Mechanical Equipment The project proponent has identified no specific mechanical equipment at this time. All roof-mounted exterior air conditioner system components shall be shielded behind a parapet wall equal in height to the top of the tallest A/C unit. Public Address System To avoid noise impacts to neighbors, no outdoor public address (PA) systems shall be permitted. Based on the Noise Study, no catering vehicles would therefore be allowed on the western side of the proposed buildings. Noise control may be required for the California Gnatcatcher's nesting season, from March 1 to August 15, and for other riparian songbird species from February 15 to August 15. Any construction occurring during these periods may require noise monitoring and possible noise control measures. Catering/Mobile Lunch Vehicles Catering vehicles (lunch trucks) tend to frequent industrial and commercial sites, and may return several times a day at times set aside for breaks and lunch. The vehicles normally sound a horn or identifying signal to announce their arrival. The City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance does not specifically control these signaling devices; however, the typical maximum allowable sound level for signaling devices is 90 dBA at 50 feet, for a maximum duration of 10 seconds. If allowed on the eastern side only, the proposed buildings would act as a noise buffer to the noise produced by these vehicles and thus provide a 20-dBA noise reduction. With implementation of the recommended noise mitigation, including the parapet wall enclosures for the roof-top A/C systems, noise from all sources associated with the project can be controlled to levels in compliance with the nighttime noise limits mandated by the City of Chula Vista, and will have no significant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. The sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project are the nearby homes/aparrments. The 44.1-dBA Leg mitigated sum of the proposed project- related noise is expected to be less than the current or expected ambient traffic noise levels at the residential property line. Additionally, the proposed project buildings will provide the adjacent residential area with noise shielding from the current and future traffic noise from Main Street, thus providing an overall net decrease in ambient noise levels. Mitigation: Noise control measures are required as follows: I.) All roof-mounted exterior air conditioner system components or any noise generating equipment shall be shielded behind a parapet wall equal in height to the top of the tallest A/C or similar equipment unit. 2.) To avoid noise impacts to neighbors, no outdoor public address (PA) system shall be permitted. 3.) No catering vehicles shall be allowed on the western side of the propose'd building. 4.) Noise testing shall be accomplished for activities/operations (indoor & outdoor including trucking operations) associated with all proposed buildings in order to assess that the project site development is in compliance with local municipal regulations related to noise. If testing indicates noncompliance, sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated by the applicant/property owner as recommended by the noise report to bring the activities/operation into compliance_ 30 ._9... 10/7/02 PolenlJ.ally Pvc.entialJy Significanl Less thao SignlrlC3Dt UDIess SignifkllDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 5.) Noise control measures for both short term (construction) and long tenn impacts will be required for the California Gnatcatcher's nesting season and for other riparian songbird species from February 15 to August 15. Building "C" is located approximately 260 feet from the southerly property line which is the area closest to the Otay River area. If noise testing accomplished in particular for activities/operations (indoors & outdoors including trucking operations) associated with building "C" which is closest to the Otay River area assess that the project site development is not in compliance with local, state and federal regulations related to noise, the project shall implement noise attenuation measures as recommended by the noise report that being the project into compliance. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmen! sel1lices 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 roads? 0 0 0 181 e) Other govemmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new or altered governmental services will be required to serve the project. Fire and police protection can be adequately provided to the site. Mitigation: None XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not significantly impact any of the seven. Threshold Standards. o o o 181 a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 181 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 Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is one mile away and would be associated with a two -minute response time. Comments: The Fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department. Mitigation: None . b) Police o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. "31 ~.!L . 1 n /7/.Q2..__ Potecti:lily Significant Impact PotentiaUy SignlflCaDt V.Ieg MJtigated Uss thaD SignlflC2nt Impact N. Impact Comments: The Police Threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department. Mitigation: None C) Traffic o o o Ii! 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Comments: The Traffic threshold would be met because the project would result in only I ,422 trips per day. Main Street, a four-lane major would remain at a Level of Service" A" after completion of the project. Mitigation: None d) ParkslRecreation o o o IS! The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/1,OOO population east of 1-805. The proposed industrial project would be exempt from this Threshold Standard. Comments: No additional park and recreation facilities would be required by the construction Df an industrial facility. Mitigation: None e) Drainage o o o IS! The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that a drainage study will be required to demonstrate the amount of flows contributed by this project and the adequacy of the facilities to handle these flow. No conflict with the City's Drainage Threshold is anticipated. No mitigation is required. Mitigation: None t) Sewer o o o IS! 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. Comments: There are two existing parallel sewer lines bisecting the site; a 15" City of Chula Vista sewer .and a 27" City of San Diego sewer line. As a standard measure, the city will require from the owner calculations proving the proposed fill and live loads will not harm the existing 15" sewer. The City will also require televising the sewer line before and after the construction to show no damage has occurred. The owner 3'l... ~~. ._,________,____ 10/7/02 Pot~ntialJy Po(~ntialJy Significant Leu Lban Signifiant Unless Signiftant No Impact Mitig.llted Impact Impact will also be required to contact the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department in order to inform them of the proposed type of construction activities to take place over the sewer main and comply with their request for project information. No conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated. No mitigation is required. Mitigation: None g) Water o o o III The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: Water service is required for the proposed project. The Sweetwater Authority indicates that there is an existing eight-inch main located on the north side of Main Street. This water agency also indicates that their records indicate that there are two water services to this parcel fed from the eight-inch water main in Teena A venue to the west. The owner wi]] need to submit a letter to the Authority from the Chula Vista Fire Department stating fire flow requirements and enter into an agreement for water facility service. No conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated. No mitigation is required. Mitigation: None 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 III b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 III c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 III facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 III e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 III f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 III Comments: Underground electrical and telephone services would be extended to the site from the nearest available power supply. The extension of services would not require new systems to be insta]]ed, or alterations of existing utilities. Mitigation: None XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of - an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? o III o o b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic 3.1 o o o III 10/7/02 12 route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 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? PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Significant Less th~D Significant Unless SigniflC2nt No lmp"tl Mitigated lmpad Impact 0 tij 0 0 0 0 0 :;: o o :;: o Comments: The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public because the project is not located on a scenic route. However, the project may result in an aesthetically offensive site open to public view unless mitigated. The subject site is not located at a higher elevation and would only be visible from Main Street and the adjacent residential neighborhood located to the north and west. A chain link fence currently surrounds the subject site. Mitigation: I. The roof equipment shall be screened as conceprually shown on the site plan and is subject to review and approval by the Planning & Environmental Services Manager prior to the commencement of construction. 2. A landscape plan approved by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for approval prior to the commencement of construction. The plan shall include non-invasive vegetation that: Does not require permanent irrigation; and Is compatible with the coastal sage scrub habitat south of the development area. 3. Project proponent shall install landscaping prior to the completion of construction in accordance with approved landscape plans. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Wi}! the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, strucrure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic culrural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? 13__.__ o o :;: o o o i8j o o o o i8j o o i8j o o o i8j o 3'1 _____ l 0 / ?J..92-_____ Potelltian,. Significant Impad PottntiaUy Significant Unless Miligated Les.stb.an Signifiolllt 1m"'" No Impact Comments: There would be no significant impacts because there are no known cultmal resources in the project area. Mitigation: None XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no known paleontological resources on the site or in the adjacent area. Minimal grading is required and no significant impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated. o o o 181 Mitigation: None XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a} Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 0 181 parks or other recreational faciJities? b) A ffect existing recreational opportUnities? 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 181 or programs? Comments: The construction of industrial buildings will not result in an increased demand for recreational facilities. Mitigation: None XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mllnclarory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a} Does the project have the potential to degrade the quaJity 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? o o o 181 Comments: As discussed in Section VII, Biological Resources, the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 0.0 I-acre (400 square feet.) of coastal sage scrub (CSS) a vegetation community considered sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 3$"" 10/7/02 14 Potent!.ally SignifK3nt Impale! POlenlblUy Signiflcant Unl~ Mitigated No Imp:ilct ~than Sip.Ineant Impact Mitigation: Same mitigation identified in Section VII, Biological Resources. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Constructing light industrial buildings would not significantly affect the long-term environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista. 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 theeffects of probable future projects.) Comments: The construction of the proposed industrial buildings with the addition of roof or ground equipment would be noticeable from residences located on Ancurza Way and Alvoca Way. However, the applicant has designed the facility to minimize aesthetic impacts to a level below significance. d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No significant effects on human beings would result from the construction of light industrial buildings. Mitigation: Same mitigation identified in Section XIV, Aesthetics o o o I;j o o o I;j o o o I;j XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction and operation of the project: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Prior to issuance of a grading permit or final map, the applicant shall: I.) The embankment immediately south of the development zone (an existing fence on the north side already defines this boundary) if planted, shall only be planted in native sage scrub plant species indigenous to the adjacent Otay River floodplain. 2.) The adjacent floodplain area immediately southward of this embankment shall be placed into dedicated biological open space. 3.) Project lighting shall not be directed southward into this biological open space habitat. 4.) Hardscape rainfall run-off shall be designed to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National Pollution Discharge & Elimination System (NPDES) standards. 5.) Project construction noise standards shall comply with Item d. (Noise), Priority 1, Dra.ft adjacency guidelines for the Subarea Plan. ::>'- . 15_ 10/7/02 6.) Obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HILT) permit from the City of Chula Vista for the Diegan coastal sage scrub. The HILT will require that the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub be mitigated at a I: 1 ratio (0.01 acres) inside the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve or at a 1.5: 1 (0.02 acres) ratio outside the MSCP Preserve; or 7.) Obtain "take" authorization for the Diegan coastal sage scrub from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game through a Section 10 (a) or other appropriate permitting process. NOISE Noise control measures are required as follows: 1.) All roof-mounted exterior air conditioner system components or any noise generating equipment shall be shielded behind a parapet wall equal in height to the top of the tallest AlC or similar equipment unit. 2.) To avoid noise impacts to neighbors, no outdoor public address (PA) system shall be permitted. 3.) No catering vehicles shall be allowed on the western side of the proposed building. 4.) Noise testing shall be accomplished for activitiesloperations (indoor & outdoor including trucking operations) associated with all proposed buildings in order to assess that the project site development is in compliance with local municipal regulations related to noise. If testing indicates noncompliance, sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated by the applicant/property owner as recommended by the noise report to bring the activities/operation into compliance. 5.) Noise control measures for both short term (construction) and long term impacts will be required for the California Gnatcatcher's nesting season for other riparian songbird species from February 15 to August 15. Building "C" is located approximately 260 feet from the southerly property line, which is the area closest to the Otay River area. If noise testing accomplished in particular for activities/operations (indoors & outdoors including trucking operations) associated with building "C" which is closest to the Otay River area assess that the project site development is not in compliance with local, state and federal regulations related to noise, the project shall implement noise attenuation measures as recommended by the noise report that bring the project into compliance. AESTHETIC IMPACTS 1. The equipment pad shall be recessed into the slope as conceptually shown on the site plan and is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Services Manager prior to the commencement of construction. 2. A landscape plan approved by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for approval prior to the commencement of construction. The plan shall include non-invasive vegetation that: Will screen the irrigation equipment pad from the adjacent residences west of the site; Does not require permanent irdgation; and . . Is compatible with the coastal sage scrub habitat south of the development site. 3. Project proponent shall install landscaping prior to the completion of construction in accordance with approved landscape plan. 37 K__ 10/7/02 XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the liners) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the liners) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaratip-6XDeclarationth the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) andlor Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] Jl4+ W (1 J {CY-- Signature of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] Date \o--ot~D"'2-- Printed Name and Title of [0 or if different from Property Owner] , lu~ Signa re of Authorized Representative of [Opera or if different from Property Owner] Date \ ~-cq-oz.- XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportationlC ircula tion 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing . Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources . Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources o Air Quality . Noise 0 Recreation o Paleontology 0 Mandatory Findings of Signif. 3~ 1r,/ilo? XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0 and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, · there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0 least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 0 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. J31!t~ Sig ature Date \ 0 _ 0 Lj - 0'"2. Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Services Manager City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 3'1 -'-"--- 10/7/02 E '" '" o 0: g> t o c. Q) 0:: ." c rn '" c ." ,.g c o :2' c .Q ro ~ :2 OJ Q) ~ ii5 c 'm 2 ~ ..- ..- '" C. ::J o is c: Q) E 0- o W > <l> o c: o .c: OJ :2 <.) :2 :;:0 c: ~ OJ Q) <.) C = :<: iio -0: x rn 06 C VJ I- m Cl) Q.J QJ c: E (,,) 0) 'c c .~ ~ ~ 2 Q} ro 0: .~ (f) :2' w -'" " VJ ....... U .- ;::: c -5 ~~ ;;:-.bD[i _ c: c: ~ 'Z: ti:: C\1 .~ Il) .- X "0 'E " E C >... .9 ~ ~ ca ~ ~ ...... c 5 --a Vi " N E ~ " ~ 5] '" E .D 0.-", c: 0 t c; 0:; 0 " >- c " " -'" "0 OJ t-,g-B ~ ..... c ~ 0 0 "CJ OJ ~ C '" 0.. OJ .D :>, "2 o U) .... OJ OJ 'u > OJ P2 0. U) -d' OJ ~ C '" 0.. :t: >, '" ~6 c." OJ .D g 2~ ii '" OJ OJ -'" OJ)~ iJ5 0 ~ ~" Q.::: '" ~ "0 '" C C ::J ] .S :;:0 c: ~ rn <l> <.) c: = ;: iio -0: x rn 06c I- CI'J Q.J :J3 w .S: E u rn c c: '2: ~ c: 0 OJ m m.: Cf) ~ EL ~ w ~ ~] '" '" <.) :.a c:r.......~ 'ta 0 0 0.. ~ "'d .5 o ~~ ~ .c - ::J o VJ ~ c OJ <.) '" ~ '" U) ::J C o:.ffi i3 0. OJ) "0 ~ :5 .5 ~ " .c VJ >,~ _ C " OJ OJ e:~~ - .D 8 a N ._ (l) "0 OJ <.) '" 0.. OJ v .D g 0. on C OJ 0. o :;:0 c: .... rn <l> <.) c: = ;: iio -0: x OJ 06c(/)1- 0) Q) IV QJ .f: E (.) 0) c: c .~ ~ c: 0 Q) ro !Q .~ {j) ~ 0.. t: LU "0 OJ OJ <.) ~ '" <.) 0. ~ U) ~ 5 OJ 0. .D 0 " <.) '50 o '0 :E ~o; g .~ OJ) ~ 0 ]-0 m:E OJ) U) .5 :.a :<:: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ '" 2 ~ .....: iO-<.c-S ;~ ri"') ~ ..=: '+0 :;:0 c: .... OJ <l> u c: = ;: iio <( x rn ~ C en I..... .~ ~.~ ~ c: c: 2: c: c: 0 Q) rn ~.~ C/) ~ w " ..2 ~ E ,..D _ c: v c;j 0 1;; ""c;j ::3 ........ >-. -",O'..';'CIJ !',Ij L.o H :::: ~ ~ ~.s ........ C'j c::....... ? ~ '" ~ :::: -- 's 2 g co :.::: oUw '8, 0' _" ~ :>"'0 C ~ ;;> OJ . .~ _ ~ e.n~ 0) ro t:d 11) "'0"= ""C::J ~;~8~ -d.......~::::~ .... o<ZJ '" .- ~ ::r:: "5Q :::::~ 6:(5 "0 OJ 0 ~b .- C VJ 0 ~~u :;:0 c: .... rn <l> <.) c: = :<: iio -0: x rn 06 'E (/'j l- e> EID QJ ~ .S .~ rn c: c: 2: c: c: 0 Cl) co rtI.: (j) 2: 0:: ~ w ~ c~ ~ 'C ...... -0 .3 c: .... .... roCl..~ U) ^ OJ on OJ VJ OJ .~ .- c o~~ c:c"O c:: -d '5 .9 b.D ....... 5 () OJ 2 .::: ~ U) C o () ~ () " '0' .... iO-< :>, () .c c: ~ " .~ g >-.~d -0.. ro ro p:: E q:; o '" '" U I--r ~ Q '" .D " U) " .c V') on ~ E ~ OJ o ~ OJ c t o Q. <1J 0:: "0 C ro OJ c ." .9 'c o ::;: c .Q ro ~ ::;: (j) !'! U5 c 'iij ::;: ~ ... ... C') Q. :J 2 <.9 C '" E Q. o W > '" o c o .c ro ::;: u ::;: c; ~ r--. 0 0..0-....... "0 ._ U ~ Q) .::: r./J I-. C;j =' ~ -- OJ):;;; ~ ~ ~ ~ .- Q) U E -5 S ro '" ~ ca--Q)Ij)\.-.oNO U) ~, ~ .s ~ ~ 2 d r.J') ,.... 0 :::3:::: ~ '-" o ,...!:: U 1-< .- ~ ..... ~ C ro .s< 'Q. Q. <( x ro ~ c ~ O'J Q) ~ t1) .5 E ,u g' c c ~ c c 0 Q.) ro .!2'~ (j) ~ D.. c W ~~..DO '" '" 2 t-' c5 u ~ ~ V)..s ~ ..... " 0 (lJ "" 'u " ~ >-. ~ u (lJ OJ) '" " ..c '" ~ ...... E fd .:3 0 till :E ~ .~ '" Q ~ 'g 15 " (lJ ~ ';:;;; p. .... :c--~ of-", d t) Q) - 'r-'.J::: 'D~>f- OJ .:: '" a' OJ OJ OJ) ~ " '" - .~ f- ::3 ::c. c;; ~ U) " o u " " OJ) '" i5 ";;;,,, '" 0 ~ .- u '" ~ i: c:: ~ o " ~ 0 oU '-E en ~ '" ....... 'u - 15- '" rn '" c - ~ .,., ~ 0.. '" 0.. U ",rn ~ :;;; o '" ..c '" ~ C '" '" "" tfJ 'Ci) ~ E 10-. 0 C ro .s< Q. Q. <( x ro o(j C tf) .... O'J QJ Q) OJ .s E (.J en c c .~ ~ c 0 Q.) rn ro.= (fJ::;: a: E w '" '" ~ ..c = _~ ~ OJ o ",,0 " "" ~ '" " 0 " '" .:rn ::J ~ ~] ~ " o E ''';:: 0 11) ~ ~ ~ .;:: ..c 'c ~ 2 ~ ::: ~ " "'~ OJ) .- " - "':::! ~ ..c~ '" " i.I:'-' ~;: ~ " '" " E .S ;:: U '" OJ ire/.) Q '" '", -'< ?~ ~ '" " 8 "'C ro :::: g 's " <B ~..c ~ ._ U) ro r-Q~U " 'a .E o ..., ..c OJ) '" o .s vi U) u u o ... 0.. OJ) " 'fj .~ OJ 0.. '" .9 ... 0.. o ... P.. 0.. '" E ro ~ '" 2 a. '" C t o C- OJ 0:: "tJ C ro '" C 'C .9 '2 o :2 c o ~ ~ :2 :;0 c ~ ro OJ u c = ;: 8:0 <( :;0 ~ Q; u c = ;: 8:0 <( :;0 c ~ ro OJ u c = ;: 8:0 <( >< >< >< ro 2 ro 2 ro 2 01! c: <IJ ...: <IJ 01! c: <IJ ...: <IJ 01! c: <IJ ...: en U5 c U5 c U5 c ",OJ OJ OJ 01! .<;2 '" OJ OJ OJ 01! g '" OJ OJ OJ o(S g .S E u '" ;: c E u '" ;: c E u g';: c c .~ ro c ro 'c c .~ ro c ro "c c .~ c ro c 0 c OJ ro > c 0 c OJ ro > c 2 c OJ ro :> ro ~ OJ ro .;; i5: OJ ~ ~ OJ ro .;; i5: OJ ro OJ ro .;; i5: a.> i5: .;; U) :2 OJ W ";; U) :2 OJ W i5: .;; U) :2 OJ UJ c 0:: a. c 0:: c 0:: W W W <IJ ~ >-. OJ .9 ~ '" E '0 '0 to '@ c: .D 0 ~ OJ OJ to 0 B ;: <IJ Q) "'@ U .D <IJ 0 - .s ~ ~ ~ ~ "@ 6-:;: ..::: >-. 5" 0 CD <IJ "@ ii5 .S ..::: OJ '" ~ ~ <IJ ~ ,-.. OJ 0.. OJ <IJ c:: ~ c t: <IJ .D ~ "@ ~ ro >< ~ 0 0... OJ :2 OJ OJ t:: ~ ] ~ '-' "@ ..::: OJ c: - ~ 0 OJ <IJ <IJ ..::: ~ to 0.. E ~ U <IJ <IJ 4-< .". '0 E 0.. OJ OJ OJ 0 ..,. 0.. ~ to <IJ '" <IJ OJ '5 to -.::: 0..';:; OJ ~ 0 OJ ;:; c:: u 0" ~ ..; E '0 U OJ to 4-< 0.. <IJ " OJ 0.. 0 'a ._ co :.a '0 " to 0 E " OJ .;;; 2 OJ E co 0. <IJ .~ OJ E OJ bJ) - '0 -d ;>- (') <.!. ~ c: '0 .8 c: ~ OJ E c: 0 ~.~ OJ c:: " - bJ) 0 .9 E 0...";::::: .9 OJ <IJ to ~ - OJ ... ... ~ 0. '0 ... E ~ <IJ E ~ OJ 0:; '5 '0 OJ ~ 0.. 0: .D o OJ ~ OJ ;>- to 0 ~ OJ 0 0" 0 0. u a; :;: .g bJ)'O ~ OJ to '0 '"' > <IJ OJ l;J r=; - OJ 0 OJ c:: OJ OJ ;: :.a '0 ~ " .D Z -B :9 0 <IJ .s OJ 0:; '"SD;;:: 0 - '0 c: <IJ "@ c: - 0 0 '0 :.a .- E ,-.. 0 ..::: 0 c: '5 0 Z <2 - u c: <IJ ] 'C;; N 0: <IJ C""1 0 .!:J ~ '" :2 u :2 "'4 _._~.._.._~_.__.- -, E i'" OJ o 0: OJ C t o Q. Q) 0:: 1:J C '" OJ C .C .9 'c o :::; C .Q rn g ~ m OJ ~ ii5 C 'm :::; ~ "" "" '" , "- :J 2 o c OJ E Q. o Qj > OJ o C o .c '" :::; o :::; '" ~c OJ QJ ~ .5 Eo c: c: 2: C 0 Q) ro .= U) 0: E: w "" 1:J .5 ~ -c 0 " "- u: e .S 0- o..o~ Eo __~ o"tj..s~ :3 :; .~ '" 0 " x ';ij ~]-5 ~ ~ 'f] Q) o ~ ~ ~ ~ " -=- .9 .E ~ C ~ o .g e (:; ~.:: o '" """" c: J2-o u " " b..D ~ o o -c .5 ~ '" c: .2 ';ij ~ " "- oS: '" .3 :~ u '" 2 '" ';;j .2 u " '0' ...c ~ .- Q. " ~ OJ OJ '" c: ro :::; CJ)C:~ .5 .S -::: Vi ~ ;!: ~ ~ ';ij v '" ~ 'g -g c: " '" 0 0 - '" o.-c '5 ~ u ~ '" c: .2 .~ ~ '3 "" " ~ c " E '" '" "- "- " ...s 'u ~ Q) ';:: U ~ :5 :.a "0 E .5 OJ- u c: c: .- '" c." " ..D o g C; o .c c: ~ ;>, ..D .2 "'0 e " " -g CL " oS: E .~ E 8 .~ " u ~ '" ~ -5 ~ " CD c: c: ~ 'i: o ..D e.2 " t CL 0 o Q. ~ " CL ~ ~ ~ E ~ I.., C'I:I '0 ;:I .:2 c ~ 0. " E g.-5 ;>, ..D -c " " ~ o e- o u " u c: .:2 0. E o u o .5 :;:, @ w o c: = ~ 8:0 <{ x x x ~ OJ c: .c c: ro a:: ro C <l> <f) E 1$ c: '2: 2 OJ ':; CJ) c: W E ~ ~ t '!j: 2 -;;; "~ ~ ~ u " ~ '" .c '0 0. u .D E ~ ._ u ~ E g :a B 0 5 '" ~ gp 'E (l).,2t2 E 1:J'" -0 c U ~ ~ 25 .s ~ u " .~ o :z: ~ c: .S I- ..s u " -c ~ " t:; .::: c: " o 0- l.r)~~ ...,. 'f3 ~ .!:::: 'B u "-< ~ "" "'2 c :E~ cIJ '5 g "" (/) .:!2 ~ t: v-i 0 C'I:I \0 U 'C In (".I .- "''' .c "- 01) " ~ " ~ <>:: ~ _0 -;:: o v; - <i; '" ro c ro :::; CD .:= ;;; " c: ;>, ~ '" 1:J " C ~ '" .g c: ~ o " i(j 0 ~~ "'~ t:; aD I- ~ ,5 t!2 o ~ E u E o '" C ~ ~ ctI '0 " __~ c '" b " Q) .5. ';ij E 'x o ~ "- "- " ~ ..:2 " Od u 't '" 0. oJ " ~ '" ~ .5 > ~ ei:2 .g " '" a. >. "'t;j l- e ctI Q) g, P.. (5 ~ J2 >. :.::: [/) u I: (l) o...~ Q) ~ .;; E.~ B ~ 8 .f: ...s ~ B ~ g t; Qj g'~ ~ ~'"O (5 (l) ~ ';ij~ 'u 0 o '" '" '" ~ ~ o o -c e, .B ~~ o ~ '';:: </J ",,2 :u <..> "- '" 0'- ~ 0I)<:J c: _ ~~ " =u 01)" c OJ) :.0.5 ,,-0 -u:-:=:: .5.E .~ ctI ~ ;o! i::.g"Vi "~ E "--c o c: 0; '" ~ 2 ~_!! "0;9- E V'J ~_!! _ 'r;; _ 0 ';ij ~ ~ ~ 'g '" ~ "'" u " '0' J:: ~ - "- .- " " .c Q) - ;,! ro .~ -S-o.. ~ E i3 0 ~ u ~ ro .5 -;;:; u oS 1:J Q) ';ij 0; ~ ~ c .2 " ctI ~ ~ "0 (\) '" c: ~ ~ -5 u OJ '0' t. ~ '" := ;;;; 13 ~ ~ o "- OJ ~ oJ '" '0 c .2 " u ~ c v - .:3 .:::: 0.. o E c 0 u o .5 - u " '0' ~ "- c " E .!! "- .~ ;>, ..D 1:J " 1:J C " ~ o u " ~ >< >< if> if> tL if> tL '" Q) E if> E if> " ~ > Q) ~ > OJ ~ <= ';:: '" ~ '" " Q) ~ OJ () '" "" .9 '" 0 ;:: '" 0 .~ 0> <= ro Q) ro s: E '" ro s: E OJ ro ro CJ) <= E <= E en <= c. > W ro CJ) ro ro Q) :;: c:- o W :;: c:- o w :;: a:; "" ro U ro U t9 "" "" t9 "" <>5 0. "0 -a .: '" 0 " to " ~ "0 to ro .~ .S: " - " w " i:: - 8 CD to > to >, ~ ~ " 0:; P- c: ro " '+-< 0 Q) ~ ro .D " "0 V) E 0 ~ ~ u 0.- U) E ro " " .S: 0. ii5 V) " ZJ P- c: ro " - 0. >, - > u .~ 0 .S <= " " > u .D '6 - V) ZJ ro .D - 0 ZJ <:: 0 r; V) to ro V ~ Oiij '0;; ~ ro " <U ..<:: ~ " "0 .D P- o > '" - - ::::; 0. ~ " > <:: " .S -;; " ~ to " 0. V) ro u p.. .- g- o:; > <:: <:: "0 <::: ~ ..<= -5 E 0 '" ro 0 " E " ..,. V) E 0 ~ " ~ u to ..<= " -;; <3 " to <2 - ..<= ..,. - "0 <:: u P-.D 4-< 0 " ..<= u u '" to 0 to 0 0.- P- ..<= - ~ 0 <:: 4-< V) <U - " ro ~ ro _ ro - ..c:: ro E ~ .~ " c: ro - - " " .~ 0 - -"8 c. ..<= '" to ... <= :J .8- ~ - ro ..c: " "0 '5 ..c: " 0 0 0 0 .~ ~ - '" >- E .=: " ;;; to - u ~ " ..<= 0 P- - u 0-< :D 0 1-< U t9 0-< V) > - V) ro " " 0 ~ .- - .S ~ 0. .S ro ~ " ..Q " 0. CD " u "0 .~ V) 0 " 4-< ~ "0 ... ro 0 .-< to .;..; - ~ 2 ... 1-< to to 0 ro 0 P- o. .- ro Q) 0 -;; 0 to .;: ..: u"o [] " ~ ..<= to 0. E 0 ro E S J3 CJJ to 0. " - 0. .!2 '" .- - 6' - .S: c. ... - "0.04-< E c;; to V) 0 u "" 0 P- - ~ -0 0 " .S: u ro " .- - " " " u 01J ~ U 0 to .S 0 ..<= '0' ~ u P- a:; ..c: " " ...:2 Q) >-. ro Q - V) " ro u .= to " u - ro .0 > f- 01J t.;:: - ro - ,; ... u ... u <:: .D .- ro .::: ~ 0. CD 2 """ Q) 0 ~ ] :.:::iJ " - en - V) 0 to '" ..<= " :g " 'd V) "0 U ro to ro " - " 01J u ~ c:: to to " ::;: " " ..<= ..<= " . . V) 0 V) 0 od -'" 0 ,...., ro .~ """ u N 0-<_ - f- > (<) - U .J:: ro ::::; " ::::; '+'-r --_...__.~. _..--_.~._.-_._.._._-- " ro .!'! C. a. <( " ro .!'! C. a. <( " ro o!'! C. a. <( E ro ~ '" o ~ 0. '" " t o a. (lJ a: "C " ro '" " B 'c o ::::; " o ~ g ~ >< PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: 2- MEETING DATE: 11-20-02 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN BACKGROUND In an effort to extend economic development tools throughout commercial areas in the western port of Chula Vista, Redevelopment Agency staff is proposing a redevelopment plan amendment to the existing Bayfront, Town Centre I, Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas ("Amendment"). The proposed Amendment would incorporate the following: 1) Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Bayfront, Town Centre I, Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Projects 10 create the Merged Chula Vista Redevelapment Proiect and Praject Areo ("Merged Project Area"); 2) Add approximately 528 acres of noncontiguous commercially and industrially zoned property in west Chula Vista into the Merged Project Area, as depicted and described on Exhibit A (the "Added Area"); 3) Establish an amended and restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Project Area to aggregate tax increment revenues among the constituent redevelopment project areas, establish unifarm redevelopment plan policies, and patentially designate distinct planning areas tailared ta serve the needs of the various components of the Merged Project Area. The law would preserve each constituent redevelopment proiect's accounting, tax sharing formulas, and limitations. The Preliminary Plan forms the fromework within which the final Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be developed. The Preliminary Plan describes the proposed Amendment, the boundaries of the existing Project Area and proposed Added Area, and generally shows how the Amended Redevelopment Plan would conform to the City's General Plan and achieves redevelopment objectives of the Agency. This Plan is being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration as a first step in the approval process. Approval of this Preliminary Plan permits Agency staff and consultants to proceed with the preparation of an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and City Council consideration next spring. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving Ihe Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger. \ 1,li ~_...,.. '.---- .-..-. ..- PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 11-20-02 DISCUSSION Law Requirements Redevelopment Low prescribes 0 process to undertake this Amendment, which takes approximately eight months. The Planning Commission participates at specific intervals of the Amendment process. The first Planning Commission action is to formulate a Preliminary Plan and designate boundaries of the proposed expansion areas. The Planning Commission is to approve and submit the Preliminary Plan to the Agency. Approval of the Preliminary Plan permits the Agency to prepare an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the proposed merged Project Area. The resolution provides far the Agency's approval of the accompanying Preliminary Plan. The Proposed Merqer The Agency currently has five separate redevelopment plans that were adapted between 1974 and 1998. The policies within these plans differ as Redevelopment Law, as well as the Agency's procedures and practices, have changed over time. As a result, administration of the plans can be difficult due to Ihese inconsistencies. In addition, Redevelopment Law generally prohibits redevelopment agencies to shift tax increment revenues between project areas, unless the areas are merged by a plan amendment. Presently, the Agency has two merged project areas (the Bayfront and Town Centre I Merged Project Area, and the Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Merged Project Area). While tax increment revenues can be shared within the two merged project areas, the Agency currently does not have the authority to reallocate funds between the merged project areas. The financial merits of merging all of the project areas into a single merged area are many. First, the Agency's reporting activities are reduced to a single project area, making administration more efficient. Second, tax increment revenues can be allocated anywhere in the project areas as needs arise, thereby permitting greater flexibility in financing implementation activities. Finally, project implementation activilies are streamlined, such as instances where a public improvement project adjoins more than one project area. Unless project .areas are merged, the Agency may find it difficult to undertake some public improvements if one project area lack the resources to contribute its share of the costs. To preserve the planning districts within the constituent areas of the existing project areas, the Amendment would also designate five separate planning areas within the Merged Project Area, generally coinciding with the existing Project Area boundaries. . The Proposed Expansion At the same time as merging all project areas far financial purposes, the Agency is proposing to add 22 non-contiguous areas, comprising approximately 528 acres, to the existing project areas (Exhibit A). Since not all of the Chula Vista older commercial areas are within one of the redevelopment areas, limitatians in the redevelopment plans could constrain the Agency's ability .~ PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 11-20-02 to complete future redevelopment projects in the five existing redevelopment project areas. In 2001, Agency staff and the consultant conducted an analysis to identify areas of blighting condilions that would qualify for redevelopment as well as areas that would be required for effective and coordinated redevelopment build-out of the Project Areas. Based upon that preliminary analysis, the proposed expansion areas were developed. These areas are generally characterized by concentration of blighting conditions such as unsafe and unhealthy buildings, incompatible use, factors that hinder the economically vioble use, abnormally low lease rates and high vacancies, depreciating values and impaired investment, excess of adult businesses, and high crime rates were identified olong older retail and industrial commercial areas on Broadway and Third Avenue (not already in a redevelopment project area). During the next phase, these properties will be further analyzed and the final boundaries established for Council consideration. The Added Area also includes property in the West Fairfield area currently in the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. The City is in the process of analyzing the merits of annexing this property as part of a comprehensive annexation analysis with the City of San Diego for several properties in the Otay River Valley. Staff will work with San Diego representatives over the next several months to delegate the redevelopment authority of this area to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency while this annexation is in process. Purpose of Preliminary Plan The primary purpose of a preliminary plan is to generally outline the redevelopment policies that will ultimately be incorporated into the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan. More specifically, the attached Preliminary Plan describes the following: . The boundaries of the proposed merged project area as amended with the Added Area; . A general statement of land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, and building intensities and standards proposed as a basis for redevelopment of the project area; . A description of how Ihe purpose of the Law would be attained through the redevelopment of the project area; . A statement that the proposed Amendment is consistent with the community's general plan; and . A general description of the impact of the proposed Amendment upon the Added Area's residents and surrounding neighborhoods. Adoption of the attached Preliminary Plan permits Agency staff and redevelopment consultants to move forward with the appropriate notices and document preparation activities with respect to the adoption. Over the next few months, Agency staff and redevelopment consultants will discuss and define targeled redevelopment efforts and will provide a draft Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan. This Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan will be brought back to .3 . . .' PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 11-20-02 the Planning Commission for its reCDmmendation in spring 2003, prior to the City Council's consideration of adoption of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Pion in June 2003. ATTACHMENTS Draft Preliminary Plan Map of Expanded and Merged Redevelopment Areas J:ICOMMDEVlTAPIA\Projects\Big AmendmentlPC Report - Preliminary Plan.doc [11/1412002 3:22 PM] 4 . ' , ' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista ("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 1541 on July 16,1974, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay1Tont Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 17, 1979 by Ordinance No. 1872, on April 22, 1986 by Ordinance No. 2146, on January 4, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2585, on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2608, on July 7, 1998 by Ordinance No. 2734 ("Bayrront Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1691 on July 6, 1976, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre No. I Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 17, 1979 by Ordinance No. 1872, on April 22, 1986 by Ordinance No. 2146, on January 4,1994 by Ordinance No. 2585, on November 8,1994 by Ordinance No. 2609, on July 7,1998 by Ordinance No. 2735 ('Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1827 on August 15, 1978, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on May 19, 1987 by Ordinance No. 2207, on July 19, 1988 by Ordinance No. 2274, on November 8,1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, on August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2817 ("Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2059 on December 29, 1983, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2611, August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2818 ("Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2420 on November 27, 1990, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and" the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 6, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 28 i 9 ("Southwest Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-267 designating an expanded redevelopment survey area ("Survey Area") to determine if a formation of a redevelopment project area or project areas, or an amendment. area or amendment areas, were feasible; and WHEREAS, staff, legal counsel, and consultants have reviewed the Survey Area and preliminarily determined that approximately 400 acres of territory ("Added Area") could meet . the necessary requirements for a redevelopment project area as provided in the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") desires to amend and merge the Bayrront Redevelopment Plan, Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan, and Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and include the Added Area in the proposed Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area ("Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista, in cooperation with the Agency, has formulated a Preliminary Plan for the Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby: 1. Designates the proposed boundaries of the merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area; and 2. Approves and submits to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista the Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger as submitted herewith and attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA this _ day of , 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Chairperson Secretary EXHIBIT "A" PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER I )'ICOMMDEVliAPIA\ProjI!CU\B1a Amllldrncm\PC 1\_. PreUmInuy PllII.cIoc ~ III Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger Preliminary Plan November 6, 2002 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Califomia 91910 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 217 North Main Stree~ Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-4822 Phone: (714) 541-4585 Fax: (714) 836-1748 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com ~ "_.__m_'_._..._.._..__.._..~,'._..____ .".__...-.--,--,_.. Preliminary Plan Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger Table of Contents Introduction ............ ..... .............................................................. 1 Merged Project Area Location and Description ........................2 General Statement of Proposed Planning Elements................. 3 Land Uses ................................................................... .................................... 3 General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets.................... 4 General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ...................;.......... 4 General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities................................. 5 General Statement of Proposed Building Standards................................. 5 Attainment of the Purposes of the Redevelopment Law.......... 5 Consistency with the General Plan of the City......................... 6 General Impact of the Proposed Project upon the Residents of the Merged Project Area and Surrounding Neighborhoods ......6 Exhibit A - Merged Project Area Map and Legal Description ...7 q. C:\VIIINDOWS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK90B5\PREL!M!NARY PlAN. DOC Preliminary Plan Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger Introduction This document is the Preliminary Plan ("Plan") for the proposed amendment and merger of the Agency's five existing redevelopment projects ("Amendment"). Its purpose is to provide a general description of the contemplated redevelopment amendment, and to designate the boundaries of proposed areas to be added to the existing redevelopment project areas ("Added Area"). If this Plan is approved by the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), the Agency would commence a process to amend the five redevelopment plans as follows: 1) Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Bayfront, Town Centre I, Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Projects to create the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project and Project Area ("Merged Project Area"); 2) Add approximately 522 acres of generally the noncontiguous commercially and industrially areas in west Chula Vista into the Merged Project Area, as depicted and described on Exhibit A (the "Added Area") [The Merged Project Area as amended to add the Added Area is hereinafter referred to as the Amended Merged Project Area].; 3) Establish an amended and restated Redevelopment Plan for the Amended Merged Project Area to aggregate tax increment revenues among the constituent redevelopment project areas, establish unifonn redevelopment plan policies, and designate distinct planning areas tailored to serve the needs of the various components of the Merged Project Area. Under the California Redevelopment Law, each of the five constituent redevelopment project areas would preserve its own accounting, tax sharing formulas, and limitations. In accordance with Section 33324 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law"), this Plan must: . Describe the boundaries of the Amended Merged Project Area; \C) ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 1 AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER . Contain a general statement of land uses and of the layout of principal streets, population densities, building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the Amended Merged Project Area; . Show how the purposes of the Law would be attained by redevelopment of the Amended Merged Project Area; . Show how the proposed redevelopment of the Amended Merged Project Area is consistent with the community's general plan; and . Describe, generally, the impact of the project upon residents of the Amended Merged Project Area and surrounding neighborhoods. Merged Project Area Location and Description With the exception of the 32-acre West Fairfield property, the Amended Merged Project Area is located in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, Califomia. The West Fairfield property, located generally west of Bay Boulevard between Palomar Avenue and Main Street, is currently within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. (The City of Chula Vista is currently negotiating the terms for detachment and annexation of this property with the City of San Diego.) The Amended Merged Project Area includes many commercially and industrially zoned areas in west Chula Vista, as well as an area east of Interstate 805 along Main Street. The total area of the Amended Merged Project Area is 3,589 acres, or 11 % of the total area of the City of Chula Vista. The Amended Merged Project Area consists of the Agency's five existing redevelopment project areas, plus the Added Area, which consists of 522 acres of additional commercially and industrially area, generally located along the Broadway and Third Avenue in west Chula Vista. Table 1 presents a summary of the Amended Merged Project Area. \ \ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 2 , ' " AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER J-IH.UJt:.t;! AK::.A tjH.CAKIJUVVN PROPOSED MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IAJ::SLt:. , Constituent Area Vear(s) Total Parcels Genera! Plan Land Use Established Acreage Designations Bayfront (1) (2) 1974; 1998 1,035 88 I. CV, IL, OSP. PRK, ROW, CO Town Centre I (2) 1976 136 473 RH.CR,CO.RM. RLM, PRK, PO Town Centre II (3) (4 1978; 1988 75 42 CR, PO. CO. OSP. RM. PRK. RHM otay Valley (3) 1983 771 112 Il. OSP, PO Southwest (3) (5) 1990; 1991 1.050 1.219 lM, Il. CMO, RM, CR, OSP, CT, ROW. PO, PRK. I, RH. PA New Area (6) tbd 522 1.244 T, CR. RH. RlM. RM, CMO. RMH. Il. CV. CO. PO. OSP, RO IUiAL:::i 3,5B9 ;;!,17B *The acreage is only an approximation. Notes: (1) Original 637 -acre area established on July 16, 1974 by Ordinance No. 1541; 398 acres added by amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2734 on July 7, 1998. (2) Bayfront and Town Centre I merged pursuant to special legislation (Article 15 of the Redeve!opment Law) and Ordinance No. 1872 on July 17,1979. (3) Town Centre 11, Otay Valley and Southwest merged on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance Nos. 2817. 2818, and 2819. respectively. (4) Original65~acre area (Chu\a Vista Shopping Center) established on August 15,1978 by Ordinance No. 1827; 10 acres of noncontiguous property added in July 1988. (5) Original 1 ,040-acre area established on November 27, 1990 by Ordinance No. 2420; 10~acre amendment adopted on July 9,1991 by Ordinance NO.2467. (6) Tentatively scheduled to be established with Amendment and Merger in 2003. General Statement of Proposed Planning Elements This Preliminary Plan envisions that the planning elements to be contained in the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Amended Merged Project Area will be identical to the applicable provisions of the General Plan and all other state and local codes and guidelines, as they may be amended from time to time. Implementation of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan may result in changes to existing land uses, in accordance with General Plan policies (and other applicable codes and guidelines), as such policies exist or are hereafter amended. Land Uses Within the proposed Amended Merged Project Area, land uses shall be those pennitted by the General Plan, as they exist today or are hereafter amended. Currently, the General Plan penn its the following uses in the Merged Project Area: . Commercial - Thoroughfare (CT) . Commercial - Retail (CR) . Residential High (RH) [18-27+ du/ac] \d-.. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 3 AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER . Residential Low-Medium (RLM) [3-6 du/ac] . Residential Medium (RM) [6-11 du/ac] . Mercantile and Office Commercial (CMO) . Residential Medium-High (RMH) [11/18 du/ac] . Industrial - General (IL) . Commercial - Visitor (CV) . Commercial Office (CO) . Public & Quasi Public (PQ) . Open Space, Agriculture & Reserve (aSP) . Right of Way (ROW) General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets The map in Exhibit A presents the principal streets within the Amended Merged Project Area. These include: Broadway, Third Avenue, Main Street, Palomar Street, C Street and Interstate 5. If a redevelopment plan is adopted for the Amended Merged Project Area, existing streets within the Amended Merged Project Area may be widened or otherwise modified and additional streets may only be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the General Plan as currently adopted or hereafter amended. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities If the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Amended Merged Project Area is adopted, permitted densities within the Amended Merged Project Area will conform to the General Plan and zoning code, as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and other applicable codes and ordinances. Implementation of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan may result in changes to existing land uses that may result in changes to existing population densities in the Amended Merged Project Area, in accordance with General Plan policies (and other \3 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. . PAGE 4 /,\1 AMENDED PREUMINARY PLAN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER applicable codes and guidelines); as such policies exist or are hereafter amended. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on the: . Percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage); . Size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and . Height of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan and zoning code, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. Implementation of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan may result in changes to existing land uses that may result in changes to existing building intensities in accordance with General Plan policies (and other applicable codes and guidelines); as such policies exist or are hereafter amended. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable codes and ordinances. Implementation of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan may result in changes to existing land uses that may result in changes to existing buildings in accordance with General Plan policies (and other applicable codes and guidelines); as such policies exist or are hereafter amended. Attainment of the Purposes of the Redevelopment Law The properties in the Merged Project Area were previously selected when each of the five constituent redevelopment plans were adopted because each of the five constituent redevelopment project areas were determined to be a blighted area as then defined by the Law. The properties included in the Added Area for the purposes of this Preliminary Plan will be more extensively evaluated and documented during the process of preparing the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan to evaluate the definitive inclusion of such properties within the Added Area identified in the proposed Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Amended Merged Project Area. Redevelopment of the Amended Merged Project Area would attain the purposes of the Law by alleviating blighting conditions that the private sector, acting alone, has not remedied. \l.\ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 5 . , ' " AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMENDMENT AND MERGER The purposes of the Law would be attained by the proposed Amended Merged Project through the: . Participation of owners and tenants in the revitalization of their properties; . Replanning, redesign and development of undeveloped or underdeveloped areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized; and . Encouragement of modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Consistency with the General Plan of the City Because land uses, transportation, and other development standards incorporate existing General Plan policies, this Plan is consistent with the General Plan. This Plan does not propose to institute additional land use policies not otherwise permitted by the General Plan. General Impact of the Proposed Project upon the Residents of the Merged Project Area and Surrounding Neighborhoods Project impacts on residents within, and adjacent to, the proposed Amended Merged Project Area will generally be improved economic and physical conditions. Through the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, the Agency desires to facilitate the redevelopment of the Amended Merged Project Area to better suit surrounding areas. Project development and implementation will be subject to further review and approval by the City Council, Planning Commission, Agency and other non-City environmental and taxing agencies. Further, the Agency will conduct a community outreach program during the plan amendment process and implementation phases to gain the continued insight and perspectives of affected property owners, business owners, residents, and other interested parties. . \5 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGES 1,\1 Preliminary Plan Redevelopment Projects Amendment and Merger Exhibit A - Merged Project Area Map and Legal Description \~ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 7 ,II Ii -- -- -- -- -- --~ml-+tL' I II i i-+---f-- . L.1__ ~ o ExllllngPtcj8CtJv-. r{~:~!?::~ Proposed 2003 Amendment AI-. /' / /' /' EXHIBIT A r I \ r-c-- \-r---r----, L;::J Vr'~ ]/:._ \ , ,fl ) ! CUJlr.----' ! 1_ L:"_I~ PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA If " ' PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ..3 Meeting Date: 11/20/02 ITEM TITLED: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-37; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Home finding Center as an interim use of the San Miguel Ranch Community Purpose Facility Site (Trimark Pacific Homes). The applicant, Trimark Pacific Homes, has submitted an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,495 square foot, I -story, 22- foot high, home-finding center and associated parking facility. The facility also includes a large outdoor landscape plaza in the rear, rrom which the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community can be viewed. The home-finding center requires approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council pursuant to Section 19.48.025 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, because it will be an interim use of Planning Area M of San Miguel Ranch, which is designated as a community purpose facility (CPF) site in the San Miguel Ranch SPA. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because the development of the site with the type of project proposed has been addressed by the San Miguel Ranch Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution PCC-03-37, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The proposed San Miguel Ranch home-finding center building is located at the north-east corner of Mt. Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road on the northwest portion of the 3.1 acre, CPF Lot "M" of the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community. The home-finding center will be designed in the SpanishlMediterranean Style, consistent with the adopted San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines. The home-finding center will operate rrom 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, 7days a week. There will be a maximum of 3 employees working at one time. The facility will be in operation until the San Miguel Ranch project is built out. A request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the interim home-finding center use on a CPF site is subject to compliance with the criteria specified in CVMC Section 19.48.025 (e). Staff has analyzed the project's consistency with the above section of the Municipal Code, and found that they can be made for the following reasons: 1. That the CPF land use designation was established at least three years prior to the I Page No.2, Item:_ Meeting Date: 11/20/02 consideration of any interim use, and the applicant agrees to continue marketing the site for a permanent CPF use concurrent with the interim use. The CPF Designation was established in conjunction with the approval of the San Miguel Ranch SPA on October 19, 1999, which is more than 3 years ago. The applicant has agreed to continue marketing the site as a CPF use concurrent with the operation of the home-finding center. 2. That the interim use is not a residential use. The home-finding center is not a residential use. 3. That the interim use is compatible with surrounding land uses. A future commercial shopping center will be located across Proctor Valley Road to the south. Biological open space is located to the east of the project. Existing residential neighborhoods are located to the west across Mt. Miguel Road, and north ofthe site. The hours of operation of the home-finding center will be 9am-6pm, 7 days a week. The architectural design is consistent with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, and therefore will be compatible with the architecture ofthe neighborhood. It is anticipated that traffic generated by the project will not be significant, external site lighting will be minimal and will not impact the adjacent neighborhoods or open space. Therefore, staff finds that the use will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. That a community purpose facility (CPF) use is not imminent at the time the applicationfor the conditional use permit is filed. No community purpose facility use of the site has been proposed to date. 5. That the interim use will terminate within five years of issuance of said permit unless the City Council provides one years notice of intent to terminate said conditional use permit. The applicant has agreed to this requirement, and a condition of approval has been included in the Conditional Use Permit. 6. That the denial of the interim use would constitute a hardship to the landowner. The applicant and staff have discussed alternative sites for the home-finding center, and have concluded that there are no feasible alternative locations. Denial ofthis request would create a hardship for the applicant. 7. That if the interim use structure is designed as a permanent building, the site design.jloor plan and building design is planned as a conceptual component of a permanent, permitted CPF use complex. " :).. Page No.3, Item:_ Meeting Date: 11/20/02 7. That if the interim use structure is designed as a permanent building, the site design,jIoor plan and building design is planned as a conceptual component of a permanent, permitted CP Fuse complex. " The project has been designed to locate the home-finding center on a small portion at the northwest corner of the 3.1 acre site, adjacent to Mt. Miguel Road and the access driveway. This leaves the remainder of the site vacant and available for development when necessary. The floor plan of the building contains one large sales information room with appurtenant office, restrooms, work and play rooms. The building has been designed so that after it has served its purpose as a home-finding center, it will be adaptable to re-use as part of a CPF use, such as a church accessory building, day care or community meeting facility. CONCLUSION: Because the home-finding center is an interim use, and the building can be used for a CPF use after the San Miguel Ranch project is built out, staff feels that this is an appropriate use ofthe CPF site. F or this reason, as well as other reasons stated in response to the criteria above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the attached draft City Council Resolution. Attachment" A. Figures: 1 . Locator 2. SPA Site Utilization Plan 3. Site Plan 4_ Concept Landscape Plan 5_ IJevation 6. Floor Plan B. Planning Commission Resolution D. Draft City Council Resolution E. Ownership Disclosure Form (h : \p] ann i ng\ri chardz\pcc03 - 3 7 pcrcport. doc) 3 FIGURES ATTACHMENT A 'f m :P UJ m 5:: m ~ SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT LOCATION o <{ o a:: \..t.'< ROAD :lOR \ip.\.. ?ROC ~ ROLLING HILLS RANCH CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 505 MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 1,500 square feet information center SCALE: FILE NUMBER: for San Miguel Ranch. NORTH No Scale PCC-03-37 Related Case: IS-03-011. C:\DAIFILE\locators\PCC0337.cdr 11105/02 5' FIGurtE I ~(IJ ~ ~ P. ~ ~ Hh o ji~l P" ~ Hil. ...... iBi i ~ 'H' i,d !i:1: ... -.1 ,. '" -". I~ ~v .', " i--' ~i;; Ii oj Hi ri ~Vz g~ f: !.H ,'~ ~ ,.,. ,;; f'1 :.h~:I: ~ !H !! H; ;,? U~ n -;1 n ~ i l~ fi :~ . ~ l': ill V~ .~~ :R~ I'~'" , T ~ , f . > , ~ i .. Q - , . . ~ . 0 . . , i, , . 0 n - , . iwn I . >> . . - >Z nH~n~! ! 'Z iih~ >- z ! 0 1'" ""pHi Q . , ! . iI! .. : ~ Iii j!!; <II ~ , . i . I . . · H · , 0 Wi t !: ~ to Iii ;;! fji . . . . I 0 " '" c: ~ z t . . . . ~ ~ 0 , , a ~ t:il ;: ; , . ; , t ~ lii~ ~ Q , , , h . c , , S z . - HI ; : . 0 g ~ ~ .., f' . , . . [r~ S I r > ~ ~ ~ ~ ! i ~ > > [ I I . z a . . z z i i S 0 z ~ . ~ Q~ " >- . . . . " : 5i . . . : : '1--- . , . : . E ~ " , ~ " - - . , >0 , , , . n. , , , .. " !;: t: ~ E ~ h' ~2 c , m .... !'" -- en . - r ; ~ . 0 I--- i5 , . " E ~ z , , , , " . ~ s ~ ~ , , . ~.. , . . " 0 . I--- z . . : : ~ - , : . , - ~ . ~ - " : . , n ~or ~ ~ ~ o ~ .., ~ z Z " 5i ~ ::;! r :!! IT ~ Go ~ IT j:g :2 ~ c: ~ o c .... n \\ !1 -=;! ~ ! ! ; (J) --j rn c , --j r ~ 11: 0 Z "U "lJ " . ~ '" " c 0 Q '" z !I ~ 1- ~ F I G-uH -,:' .) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'f. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , X , I ~ ~ , - . ~ - 0' . ~ " , I ~ ~ Ii ~ "' " / '" ~ ~ c I ~ " ~ f ~ I ~'.~ ~ ~ q ~ s ~ ~ g ~ o ~ ~ i 6 ; ~ ! ~ ". '---'--, ------- ,'""n 1,0"."" ,"m." ,IOII\T MICllf:I. I((I,J) --- --------,--<<>>- -----------~-- , , ,.... -1_ ~ ":4 ~ ;:; IIi. r~ :""E ,Ii .~z ,L ;R~ ~ ~ :>~ ~ ~ SAN MIGUEL RANCH INFORMATION GENTER \~~~~~>~~, ","~'~d4~~, ~ . \\~;~;:'..~~~~';~-= , ,>:J, '""----- ! '\:~%,~ , ~ \ ','t ~'~' " ,. I \ , I ( -- > , \ " : '1"1 I \, \ '~"I I' I' I I' '\i: ~, "l . -' ~ . '-'. / ~ , r:-J ~ ,I I ;:; c- " :;--: c- ~,; Flbuf2...f. 3 II I I II -------------- j! '" "~' u ~ ~ g ~ ~ < ~ ~ , n ' ~ 51 ~ o p ~ I i3 ' z i ~ I \(II!'\T \ll!;! i , l'hH ",I. IIW' LJ hO.\1I (, NO,IHI(J.t: '1 -....-- ----'- , I ~~,,- *' ~ ~ --+-- -+-- ~. ~ ~ ~ \ !l , i \ \ \l ~ \ i I " )1 .~' ,: \1 )1 (~-- - - 26'__ :~ -'f ~ I'~ , , , , " ---.....- -------,- ----1- ~(-~,:,\,;. J Iv . I' , /,/;- I~.,.,.~'" '" iE"',' , "\>, ' ,. .. I ! 1,~: " ',' j '~~~..,~ 'f ~v:-o;~ \, ',' f ' ;;,Y - y,<..~ I 0 ,~ I "'I . I' :,. :1' 1 ~ ~J';j'; ;.;J![<;]<;"1' ., y I;;R~~~NL RANCH CENTER I !I " , , , , , , , , .. . , '-'J-:i': :--i1l1':]':'1' :~ , tfj' '>#' , " , ,{~'~C\" '. .~~; " ,~',: """ \ ~ -'" ,~,._' ,',;'c' "v ,'I ~d1J ,,' ' 1 .. :;.;i ~1;&. /,!,,1 ,b' "','~-;:.1J' "i1i,I ;! ;;;'0rt 2'" So l I -{~\ , !;f{"" 'i/f'r'r !I! '*-' '!-< (-.. ' " '~ t ;.!~( -,-;.,~ 1 '; ~~{itJJtjf1" \' ($tcet' I l' I-It"~ ,WI 4: 't. /,\,~X(r'" , , .5 , '-", I I' '/_r)/! :':1;""':- ,- ; ,<1!;', . I ,ct, " '}'",' Ii II , I );" ). I ~"'3 !!s' ~ @ ~ ~ . ~ ~ g ~ ~ i d !;i i " I ~ 9 SAN MIGUEL RANCH INFOAMATION GENTER ). / ~..::<- ~ ! "~'::__T___' -, _T_', I " , '--'---Tnp ! ,I~ ': ~ , , , -'--200,---1' " , I':'; , , " " "', , , , , ~ , ~~ ~ -, ' ,~, , . ""'-1. I' 'i I, I " ';;18 z'l-< ~ ,~ a iQ ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ ~ n '" ~ ~ <! U o z I ~ ' " 111. 1<- '~~ .f ~ , ,i ,~ ~ ~I ;,' ~~ i fP 7': I . m , '~~ . ~ ~ > t- 'V' 10 SAN MIGUEL RANCH INFORWlATION CENTER I, 'I I, 'I " ~ 1'11\i"i( I,'" "" i ~il ", \ : r \i "', " t II' ',l.' ,Ii I__",'i ,',- " ~ I" : ")1 l ,1",,1!!1 , I \ '," ~ i '1" 1\) , ./)1 "'.^, \!O\\l \II<;{IJ-:I. IW/\!) -----------.-- -- -- ~ - --------------- I I~p -<?' 'It. I ," ;i r , : I - ',,1 ~ ,\ i ~ : M', . ''''!!' ~ " -' ~~ .' . . \.' <>-1 '" ~ 0-- ~ . x '/ LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN SAN MIGUEL RANCH INFORMATION CENTER CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA' 'n:e:'5~..s 00 --- : -......,...", ~_......... ~~~ ~""'''''''''''-....... 00 --- .....-.-..~_.... --...- --- --- ~=~ ~,..,.;,. ""'...e>< I <Sj --- ..........---...~,. --- IJ ----.. .....-- -~- ~ .CAlC.'.......... (t FH..-U'zE- 4 I ii I,' "I' 11/' iI, II \', Iii' ),' , j II Ii c i . j " 'I i'/ I I (I /7 f ( f ) I I ( \ I, 1 I, II . , , , / ~ 'II i /i' .',. -...: . -- --+,~ l Ii' i: )1 /1' I : , , ., Q-- --=:J 0[" /." l (I II ~~ V U--/ '-" 7 I:-i\ -- ..J _J ,- JL - L- ~\ I II ! Ii i I( 'k- ~ \l..J U:~ ~) I~--t -:7 J:: (IlL.!. . I,) " I - - - - "- ~J:E.v _1]1 ~ ''l1 I- CD 10 - ( 1 - 1\ '- T < 7. I {U . ~__I- r i I I I G-: 0 r~=~m- ~I~~:: u_j_-" _JI( ! ,12-, I F 11.(}~G 5 1m:::: ~:::: :~:::: ~I II III I" I I I I J 11 II, ~ 1'1 I I II I~ x ::1 III II II I I' II' ~ III I" 'I III II I Iii] II II' II III I' ~ ~Ii i ~ !J :::.'/ - - ---' 0 '- - I " - '.' " ~~ ~ ~ It .. \) ~ o t d ~ 13 ~ L t t " ::1 "I ::1 "I ::1 "I ::1_. J III->O:J ::1:<: t t ~ ~ F 'G-Uft.,E b RESOLUTION NO. PCC-03-37 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC 03-37 FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH HOME-FINDING CENTER WHEREAS, on October 21,2002, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by Trimark Pacific Homes ("Developer"), requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the San Miguel Ranch Home-Finding center as an interim use of a community purpose facility site pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.025 (e); and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented on Exhibit "A" and commonly known as San Miguel Ranch Home- Finding Center for the general description herein consists of approximately 3. I acres planned for community purpose facility development; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity will not have a significant effect on the environment because the development of the site with the type of project proposed has been addressed by the San Miguel Ranch Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on November 20, 2002, as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings, as set forth in theirrecommending Resolution PCC-03-37 herein, and recommended that the City Council approve the Project based on certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, 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 ofthe property, at least IO days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., November 20, 2002, 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Russ Hall, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary ~ [ ~ (1l :P (fJ (1l s: (1l :z --\ SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT LOCATION - --------------- --~ .---------------- o q;: o ~ ROLLING HILLS RANCH -------- 'E-'< ROAD \Jf>-\..~ I'I"OC'01" C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 505 MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 1,500 square feet infonnation center SCALE: FILE NUMBER: for San Miguel Ranch. NORTH No Scale PCC-03-37 Related Case: IS-03-011. C:IDAIFILEllocatorsIPCC0337.cdr 11/05/02 /(,. E'i.I<lliSii A- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PCC 03-37 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN INTERIM HOMEFINDING CENTER USE OF A COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY SITE - TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "I" and commonly known as the San Miguel Ranch Home- Finding Center, and herein consists of approximately 3.1 acres planned for community purpose facility development (project site); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on October 21, 2002 a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by Trimark Pacific Homes; and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 1,495 square foot, I-story, 22-foot high, home-finding center building, outdoor rear plaza, and 12-space parking lot on a Community Purpose Facility Site serving the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community as part of a commercial center development ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, said application is in compliance with all the requirements ofCVMC 19.48. 025, including all criteria for interim use of a Community Purpose Facility Site; and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a prior Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan including Planned Community (PC) District Regulations previously approved by City Council Resolution 19631 and Ordinance No. 2799 on October 19, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Planned Community District Regulations are established by City Council Ordinance 2799, pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the San Miguel Ranch SPA Land Use Plan; and, WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a Third- n tier, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) EIR-97-02 previously certified by City Council Resolution 19630 on October 19, 1999; and WHEREAS, this Third-tier FSEIR incorporates by reference two prior EIRs: the original Rancho San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan FEIR -90-02, certified by the City Council on March 23, 1993; and the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment / General Development Plan Amendment FSEIR-95-04, certified by the City Council on December 17, 1996; as well as their associated Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on November 20,2002, and after staff presentation and public testimony, voted <-) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and, E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional 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 and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely December 3, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Project held on November 20,2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting there rrom are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. PREVIOUS FSEIR#97-02 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FSEIR#97-02 (San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan/Tentative Map). IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS 03-01 I) and has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the /<(, environment because the development of the site with the type of development proposed has been addressed by the San Miguel Ranch Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02; and V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because the development ofthe site with the type of development proposed has been addressed by the San Miguel Ranch Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02, and as such reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista; and VI. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The home-finding center will allow the applicant to provide information to the public regarding the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community. In the long term, the facility can be adapted to use as a Community Purpose Facility such as a church, daycare or community meeting facility. 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 project has been conditioned to meet all other applicable code requirements ofthe City in order to insure health, safety, and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. The project will ensure that adequate parking and landscaping will be provided, and the architectural design complies with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, and therefore will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That the use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The conditional approval ofPCC-03-37 requires continuing compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit or occupancy of any facility on the site for the proposed project. 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of h the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The project implements the General Plan, and San Miguel Ranch GDP and SPA Plan by providing a CPF facility, and therefore it will not alter the land use patterns or in any way adversely effect the implementation of the General Plan. VII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS ABOVE, hereby grants approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions prior to the building permit for the project, unless otherwise specified below: I. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or any condition of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, or any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Conditional Use Permit by the City ofChula Vista. 2. This document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and! or applicant, and a signed stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed copy and stamped copy ofthis recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning and Building Department shall indicate the property Owner' sl Applicant's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval. 3. This interim use shall be terminated, and all signs and flags shall be removed, after the issuance of the last residential building permit in the San Miguel Ranch Project. Maintenance of the landscaping shall continue until the subject property is transferred to a new owner. 4. Obtain approval of Landscaping and Irrigation plans prior to issuance ofthe building permit. Landscaping and permanent irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy of the use, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 9 am to 6 pm, seven days a week. 6. One on-site fire hydrant and minimum 20-foot wide road access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. 7. Compliance with the San Miguel Ranch FSEIR 97-02 Mitigation Monitoring Program and the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan dated December 2000 is required. 8. Site lighting shall be directed away from adjacent biologically sensitive wetland areas adjacent to the northern property line. 9. Install a berm or curb on the north side ofthe driveway and east side of the parking lot to direct drainage away from adjacent biologically sensitive wetland areas adjacent to the :2..0 northern property lines. 10. The project signage shall be located as shown on the site plan. Sign shall not obstruct vehicle sight visibility. II. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 12. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 13. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective ifnot utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. VIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any ofthe foregoing conditions fail to occur, or ifthey are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition all certificates or occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building John M. Kaheny City Attorney ~ -- -~- ----~ ~ ",,- SAN MIGUEl RANCH o <{ o 0:: E.'< ROAD c>'ii'-L~ I'l':9-c}9~ ROlLING HILLS RANCH ~/c- - PROJECT LOCATION ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT 505 MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 1,500 square feet information center SCALE: FILE NUMBER; for San Miguel Ranch. Related Case: IS-03-011. NORTH No Scale PCC-03-37 C:IDAIFILEllocatorsIPCC0337.cdr 11105102 2.2- EXHIBIT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 11/20/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment PCM-00-20, a proposal to amend Sections 19.04, 19.20, 1922, 19.24, and 19.48; and add Section 19.58.022 to the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide local provisions for accessory second dwelling units within the City of Chula Vista. Applicant: City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista proposes to adopt local standards for second dwelling units in residential zones under the provisions of State Government Code Section 65852.2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is exempt from environmental review as a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15282 (I) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached ResolutionPCC -02- 13, recommending City Council approval of proposed ordinance amendments to Sections] 9.04, 19.20, 19.22, 19.24, and 19.48; and adding Section 19.58.022 to the Zoning Ordinance ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide local provisions for accessory second dwelling units within the City of Chula Vista. DISCUSSION: In the 1980's the State of California passed Government Code Section 65852.2 that required cities and counties to allow second units on residential lots either by local standards or by standards contained in the Government Code. The City of Chula Vista adopted the "dwelling group" provisions as a means of implementing the state requirement; however, these provisions required large lots to meet density requirements, which was contrary to the intent ofthe state standards Little interest in this type of housing was expressed by Chula Vista property owners until late 2000 and early 2001 when the City began to receive applications for second units under the provisions ofthe state law Staff realized that without local standards the City would have limited control over where these units could go and how they would relate to existing residential neighborhoods. For over a year, staff and the Planning Commission have been working on an ordinance amendment to provide local standards for second units. By way of background for Commissioners Hom and Madrid, and as a reminder to the rest of the Commission, staff has attached the Issue Paper (Attachment 3) prepared for a workshop held early this year on this topic. The draft ordinance reflects the direction of the Planning Commission and is consistent with the I #~--.~_._..._._----_.,~--~~._...._._.-.__.._-_. Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 11/20/02 recently adopted Assembly Bill 1866 (Attachment 4), which prohibits the requirement for discretionary permits for accessory units that meet state or local standards. AB 1866 becomes effective on July 1, 2003, after which cities will only be allowed to review second units through the building permits process. Compliance with the new law resulted in the removal of the requirement of a conditional use permit from the draft ordinance. In summary this ordinance amendment will: . Allow second units as accessory uses to single family homes only in agriculture, estate, R-I and single-family planned community zones to provide the housing desired without compromising the development potential ofR-2 and multi-family zones. . Limit the size of second units to 650 square feet. . Provide development standards for second story units. . Establish a minimum size for lots having second units. . Establish standards for the parking space required for the second unit. . Require second units to be architecturally consistent with the existing house. In September, staff sent the Commission a memo and draft ordinance that listed two issues related to parking standards that would need to be resolved as part ofthe hearing process. One issue concerned possible deviations in parking standards for second units in the planned communities. Currently the GDP for Otay Ranch encourages tandem parking and second units as elements in the urban villages being created in this portion of the city. The SPA plan for Village 6 within Otay Ranch currently allows second units to be provided with curbside parking instead of a screened on-site parking space as proposed by the draft ordinance. If the City determines that such deviations should be allowed through the SPA plans, new language may need to be added to the draft ordinance to make that intention clear. The other issue has to do with tandem parking spaces and whether this would be an acceptable means of providing parking for second units. The draft ordinance (Section ]9.58.022.3.f) specifically prohibits tandem parking for a required second unit space; but, as noted above, the Otay Ranch GDP encourages tandem parking. Staff is not advocating changing the draft language of the second unit ordinance, but would like the Commission to reconfirm that this is an acceptable standard. This issue may also necessitate new language to clarify the intent of this standard as applied in the planned communities. .:L Page 3, Item: _ Meeting Date: 11/20/02 CONCLUSION: Passage of AB 1866 has certainly had an impact on the draft ordinance. However, it has not eliminated the need for the City to adopt local standards. On the contrary, the new state law makes it even more important for Chula Vista to have local standards to make sure that the impacts of future second units is minimized. Staffbelieves that the draft ordinance presented is in keeping with many of the comments and directions given by the Planning Commission at earlier workshops, as well as with current state law. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission forward the draft ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution PCC-02-02 2. Draf\ Ordinance 3. AccessOIY Second Unit Issue Paper 4. Copy of AH 1866 3 _._.~.. . ___ _,_.... ______+ '".____'"_~...__..,._" .... __r RESOLUTION NO. PCM-OO-20 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04, 19.20, 19.22, 19.24, AND 19.48; AND ADDING SECTION 19.58.022 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE LOCAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65852.2 requires local agencies to allow second units on residentially zoned lots if they meet certain state or local standards; and, WHEREAS, to date the City of Chula Vista has not adopted local standards but has relied upon the standards in Government Code Section 65852.2 for the review and approval of conditional use permits for second units; and, WHEREAS, the City now realizes that the standards in Government Code Section 65852.2 do not provide sufficient protection for residential neighborhoods in Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held workshops to consider what the standards are appropriate for accessory second units in the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to the hearing, and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely November 20, 2002, at 6:00 p.rn in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sections 19.04, 19.20, 19.22, 19.24, and 19.48; and adding Section 19.58.022 to the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide local provisions for accessory second dwelling units within the City of Chula Vista, as shown in Attachment "A" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. 'f' ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMTSTON OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS Russ Hall, Chair Diana Vargas Secretary to Planning Commission J:\PlanninglJohnS\Documents\Resolutions\2002\PCMOO-20 2nd Unit Ord.doc :s- ~..+ u.."_<._. ______.._~_"___. ______._..__.___._. ATTAc.HM(j1A)T 2- ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04, 19.20, 19.22, 1924, AND 19.48 AND ADDING SECTION 1958022 TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE LOCAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, the California Government Code Section 65852.150 declares that second units are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices while providing homeowners who create such units with added income and an increased sense of security; and WHEREAS, the California Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance, which establishes the procedure for creating second dwelling units in single-family and multi-family zones; and WHEREAS, it is a program of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan to prepare an ordinance which implements State Government Code Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2; and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 15282 (I) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that, although the implementation of the State Government Code provisions for accessory second dwelling units utilizing Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) adequately fulfills state requirements, certain amendments and specific regulations would be helpful to clearly define accessory second dwelling units and their application to specific residential zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to amend Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the CVMC to provide specific regulations to accommodate accessory second dwelling units within single- family zones of Chapter 19 (Zoning) of the CVMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are specific adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, such as traffic congestion and overburdening of existing infrastructure that would result from allowing accessory second dwelling units in addition to any existing or proposed duplex and multi-family developments within R-2 and R-3 zones; and WHEREAS, due to the potential negative and adverse impacts from allowing accessory second units in the R-2 and R-3 zones, the City Council wishes to precluded that type of housing from R-2 and R-3 zoned lots; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on XXXX, 2002 and has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and additions. '" Draft - 10/29/02 Ordinance Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby ordain SECTION I. That Section 1904087 is added to Chapter 19.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows: Section 19.04.087 Dwellin!!. Accessorv Second Unit Accessorv second dwelling units are independent living facilities of limited size that provide permanent provisions for living. sleeping. eating. cooking. and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. This includes efficiencv units and manufactured homes. in conformance with the requirements for such units as defined in State Government Code Section 65852.2. SECTION n. That Chapter 19.20 (A- Agricultural Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read: Section 19.20.030 -Accessory Uses and Buildings (T) - Accessory Second Dwelling Units. subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.022. SECTION III That Chapter 19.22 (R-E - Residential Estates Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read Section 19,22.030 -Accessory Uses and Buildings (m - Accessory Second Dwelling Units. subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.022. SECTION IV. That Chapter] 9.24 (R-I - Single-Family Residence Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read: Section 19.24.030 - Accessory Uses and Buildings 00 - Accessory Second Dwelling Units, subiect to the provisions of Section] 9.58.022. SECTION V. That Section 19.48.145 is added to Chapter 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows: Section 19.48.145 -P-C Zone - Accessory Second Dwellin!! Units. Accessorv Second Dwelling Units may be permitted within single-family residential areas within the Planned Community zone subiect to the provisions of Section 19.58.022 and the 7 Draft - 10/29/02 Ordinance Page 3 provisions of the respective general development plans and sectional planning area (Llans for each particular planned communitv. SECTION VI. That Section 19.58.022 is added to Chapter ]9.58 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows: Section 19.58.022 - Accessory Second Dwelling Units. A. Accessorv second dwelling units are allowed in certain areas as a potential source of affordable housing and shall not be considered in anv calculation of allowable density for the lot upon which it is located. and shall also be deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation of the lot as provided Accessorv second dwelling units shall be subiect to the following development standards: ]. Accessory second dwelling units shall be limited to a gross floor area of up to 650 square feet. and may be attached or detached above or behind a main or primarv single-family dwelling or accessory structure on the same lot. 2. The accessorv second unit must accompanv a main or primarv dwelling unit on an A. R-E. R-] or P-C zoned single-familv lot. Accessorv second dwelling units are precluded from R-2 and R-3 zoned lots. 3. The accessory second unit shall conform to the underlying zoning and land use development standards of the A. R-E, R-l or P-C zoned lot. such as height. bulk. and area regulations. with the following modifications or exceptions: a. A detached accessory second unit shall be located a minimum of six feet from a main or primary single-family dwelling: unit. b. An accessory second unit is subiect to the same height limitation as the main or primary dwelling unit. c. A single story accessorv second unit mav be located within a required rear or interior side vard area. but not closer than 5 feet to any property line. In addition. the unit and all other accessory structures shall not occupv more than thirty percent of the required rear vard. Second story accessory second units shall observe the setbacks of the primary structure unless the zoning administrator approves a reduction to not less than five feet through the approval o(a conditional use permit as authorized bv Section 19.14.030. d. A lot shall be a minimum 5.000-square feet in size to add an accessory second unit. Existing lots less than 5.000 square feet may develop an accesso..IY second dwelling unit only if it can be incorporated within the existing permitted building envelope. r Draft - 10/29/02 Ordinance Page 4 e. The lot covera~ including an accessorv second unit shall not exceed 50 percent. Lots in planned communities that are alreadv permitted to exceed 50 percent in lot coverage by their Sectional Plannin~ Area General Development Plan may include an accessory second unit if the accessorv second unit can be incorporated within the existing permitted lot coverage. f. Accessorv second units shall be provided with one standard sized parking space in addition to the parking requirements for the main dwelling as specified in Section 19.62.170. The off-street parking space shall be on the same lot as the second unit, shall be screened from view from public streets. and shall not be located within a required front or exterior side yard setback Tandem parking is not allowed to satisfy required parking for an accessorv second unit. Lots having accessorv second dwelling units must take access from a public street, alley or a recorded access easement. g. The accessory second unit shall be served bv the same water and sewer service lateral connections that serve the main or primarv dwelling unit. A separate electric meter and address may be provided for the accessorv second unit. h. Accessorv second dwellings shall be designed to be consistent in architectural style with the main house and compatible with surrounding residential properties. The Design Review Committee shall review disputes about design andlor compatibilitv issues. 1. Anv accessory second unit that is attached to an existing residential structure shall meet the standards of Section 1958022, and all applicable development standards of the existing zone. SECTION VII. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Submitted by Approved as to form by Robert A Leiter Planning and Building Director John M. Kaheny City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this ,t day of , 2002, by the following vote 9 Draft - 10/29/02 ._-....-."~--_.--...,_.._-- ....-..-..-- Ordinance Page 5 AYES Councilmembers: NAYS: Council members: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the XX" day of XXXX, 2002 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 25th day of June, 2002. Executed this XX'h day of XXX XX 2002. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk J:\PLANNINGIHAROLDlOTHERIASDUORDIl\'ANCE-1 lI-29.DOC 10 Draft - 10/29/02 .. ...____........_.__ - .___,...._'____n_'._ ..__._--.-_~_._~~.__ AtrAc..~.MIE.AJr 3 ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEFINITION: Accessory second units are attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons on the same parcel as a main dwelling. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code mandates that accessory second units be allowed either by local ordinance or by state standards relating to size, parking and other development regulations generally applicable to the zone. ISSUE: . Should Chula Vista adopt a local accessory second unit ordinance or continue to rely on the State government code provisions for such units? . If the City chooses to create a local accessory second unit ordinance: o Should it exclude any zones or geographic areas? o What development standards should be included? BACKGROUND: The California State Legislature has enacted legislation declaring that accessory second units are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing forfamily members, students, the elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. When this legislation was enacted back in 1983, it required that cities and counties, including charter cities (such as Chula Vista), adopt a local ordinance or follow state law allowing accessory second units if they met the state mandated criteria. Cities, counties and charter cities could either adopt their own ordinance to allow or make findinf!s to prohibit such units (based onfindings relating to the adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare) by July 1. 1983 or within ] 20-days of their tlrst application received for an accessory second unit. In absence of such an ordinance, a city or county would be obliged to follow the government code with regard to the processing of accessory second units, including granny flats In fact, the intent of the "granny flat" legislation (sub-section 65852.150) was to encourage local agencies to adopt their own accessory second unit ordinance (section 65852.2), recognizing the need for provisions related to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, but not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. Of note, State law provides that any accessory second units added as a result of state legislation or local ordinance provisions shall be considered consistent with General Plan andlor Zoning Code density regulations. Thus, accessory second units are unaffected by local land use density controls. Historv and Demand: In Chula Vista, the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council recognized the issue II "........._.--.- _.__~~_._m __.,.._........._..,____.._. _'._,____ _'U'__'___"__'_'.' _,_.__,,_> '., ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 2 of preparing a local ordinance addressing accessory second units back in 1983. However, no ordinance was adopted at that time. Therefore, between 1983 and 1999 persons who were interested in developing accessory second units could either rely on the State law, or utilize Section 19.58.130 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to dwelling groups in certain zones. The dwelling group provisions allow additional units on oversized lots without a subdivision based upon the sites ability to meet the underlying zone density and satisJY other development regulations. In recognition of the fact that there were no provisions in the code for accessory second units as allowed under state government code provisions, and the fact that there were many public inquiries regarding accessory second units, the Planning Division began the process of preparing a draft accessory second unit ordinance in March 2000. Since then, a number of pre-application conferences have been held with property owners interested in developing accessory second units as "granny flats" (units with restrictions as to the age of the occupant) or accessory second units (no restrictions on occupancy). Seven (7) cases have been approved; four (4) were approved administratively as "granny flats"; Planning Commission approved the other three (3) as accessory second units. Another four (4) applications have been accepted and submitted for review, so at least eleven (] I) applications have been made in the last lO-months (December 2000 to October 2001). Pro's and Con's of a Local Ordinance: The City may chose to continue to process each accessory second unit by way of public hearings before the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis, utilizing the state government code in conjunction with the development standards of the underlying zoning for each individual property. The advantage to this would be that the City would not have to go through the time and effort to develop a local ordinance and conduct public hearings. However, based upon the City's recent experience processing requests for second units, there are at least four major issues of concern that have been raised that could be addressed by the adoption of a local ordinance. These issues include, (1) how to address the retroactive permitting of existing illegally constructed accessory second units; (2) how to address accessory second unit conformance with existing development standards; (3) how to address the accessory second unit size and parking requirements, and (4) how to address accessory second unit as they affect density issues, particularly on two-family and multi-family zoned properties. These issues provide good examples of why a local ordinance governing the implementation ofthe accessory second unit provisions might be necessary. In addition, Chula Vista, along with the rest of San Diego County, is experiencing a significant rate of growth at a time when there are also increased housing costs and a limited supply of affordable housing. The combination of housing demand, costs, and limited affordable housing will surely increase the pressure to allow more accessory second units as infill housing throughout the City in the immediate future. The Housing Element approved last year by the City Council for the five-year cycle ending in 2004 recognizes that the City of Chula Vista has met, and will continue to meet, the majority of its 12.. ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE3 affordable housing obligations through the development of multi-family housing projects, especially in the eastern portion of the City. However, the Housing Element also recognizes the need for providing more affordable housing opportunities. The section titled "Constraints to Housing Provision" mentioned land use controls, such as residential zoning designations. Housing opportunities are mentioned such as density bonus provisions, mixed-use development zones, and residential projects in certain commercial zones. The "dwelling group" provisions are also mentioned in the Housing Element, without elaborating on the double-lot size requirement Most importantly, however, is the "Goals and Policies" section listing as part of Goal #3 - Ensure that an Adequate and Diverse Housing Supply is Available to Meet the City's Existing and Future Needs" --- 3.4: Adopt a two-unit or second-unit ordinance to provide additional low-cost housing opportunities to residents, particularly j(Jr seniors and students. In 2000- 2001, the City, with direclionfiom the Planning and Building Department, shall adopt an ordinance that permits second dwelling units under certain conditions. ANALYSIS: Elements of an Accessory Second Unit Ordinance: Should the City of Chula Vista decide that it would be appropriate to establish a local ordinance rather than rely upon the State standards for accessory second units, decisions would have to be made on the following points: A. AFFORDABILITY: Shall the provisions for accessory second units be based on the demand for affordable housing? Should accessory second units be required to participate in affordable housing programs, such as rent control? It seems that the justification for the allowance of accessory second units could be based upon the demand for affordable housing, since the state government code allowance was, and still is, based on the need for more affordable housing, especially for seniors, disabled persons andlor relatives of owner-occupied single-family residential dwellings In the City of San Diego, the ordinance adopted (known as the "companion unit" provisions), mandates that there must be less than a 5 percent vacancy rate in rental units in order for a companion unit (accessory second unit) application to be accepted. It may be prudent for the City of Chula Vista to also recognize that the demand for such units is tied to the availability (or lack thereof) of alternative affordable housing units. In doing so, the City recognizes that its approval of such units is to allow for accessory second units under special circumstances, such as the lack of affordable housing. However, it could be very difficult to administer a floating "moratorium" on accessory second units since previously approved units would remain as examples to property owners even without an affordable housing crisis. An appropriate vacancy rate could be open to much debate. And 1$ ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 4 finally, property owners may also object to the control of their land based upon a vacancy rate factor that is difficult for them to fully understand. One method for the City of Chula Vista to be able to count the accessOlY dwelling units toward meeting the affordable housing objectives of the Housing Element, and of maintaining the long term affordability of these units, could be through the imposition of rent control as a condition of approval. Such a restriction might allow the City of Chula Vista to report these units for credit towards meeting affordable housing goals set in the Housing Element or the redevelopment plans. Conversely, such a restriction could create administrative problems with monitoring the various scattered properties for compliance with the rent restrictions. In the interest of simplicity, staff would not recommend that either the control by vacancy rate, or the imposition of rent control be applied as part of a local accessory unit ordinance. B. OCCUPANCY: Shall occupancy of the accessory second unit he limited to use hy persons most impacted hy the lack of c!ffiJrdahle housing, namely (1) seniors, (2) disabled persons, (3) relatives of the owner-occupied main single-ji:lmily unit, (4) students, (5) single-parent or single- income householdl', (6) resident care givers, etc.? Shall owner-occupancy of the main or accessory second unit he required? In formulating an accessory second unit ordinance, Section 65852.15 of the State Government Code appears to give the City the authority to limit occupancy of accessory units to persons 62 years of age or older. In the past, some jurisdictions have also required that either the main or accessory second unit be owner-occupied to address concerns about the creation absentee-owner situations on a properties in single-family neighborhoods that are predominately homeowner occupied. Unfortunately, it appears from recent court decisions that attempts to impose any requirements or restrictions on age, disability, relationship to the owner and owner occupancy would not be constitutional. In recent hearings to consider accessory units, the City Attorney has advised that, in an abundance of caution, no restrictions on occupancy be included in a local ordinance. C. LOT SIZE: Should a minimum lot size he required as part of the provisions for permitting an accessory second unit in any zone? Should the same minimum lot size requirement apply to all zones, or should if differjbr certain Planned Communities and/or Specific Plan areas and/or communitiesl"wighhorhoo{iI' ? Minimum lot size is an integral part of zoning standards imposed on single-family zones with regard to lot coverage and setbacks. Currently all single-family zones have a minimum lot size of 5,000-sq. ft. where the General Plan and the traditional R-l zoning code development standards define the zones. In the Planned Communities there are single-family lots that are as small as 4,000-sq. ft. or even less in some specific cases. There may need to be some discretion as to which of the "PC" areas could quality for accessory second units. For example, in one Otay Ranch development, there is a proposal by the McMillan (-f ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGES Company to utilize accessory second units on single-family lots averaging 4,000-sq. ft. in size as an integral part oftheir affordable housing set-aside. In these areas, only the neighborhoods or subdivisions that possess alley access would be eligible for an accessory unit. These lots are designed with the alley providing access to a two-car garage and an additional off-street parking space located next to the garage, with the accessory second unit located above the garage. In other Planned Communities, where lots are less than 5,000-sq. ft. and do not have alley access, there generally are not the same options for accessory units as described above. Accessory second units could not be accommodated without adversely affecting the infrastructure and appearance of these master planned neighborhoods. Of note, with regard to affordable housing, all ofthe existing Planned Communities have met the affordable housing requirements as part of their General Development Plan through the various multi-family developments that were required. Therefore, only in future cases where the accessory second unit was to become an integral part of the affordable housing set-aside would the requirement to include them in any Planned Community be necessary. However, it may be appropriate to provide provisions to allow for accessory second units in some of the Planned Community areas, under certain conditions by way ofa local ordinance. Of note, the first "granny flat" unit approved in Chula Vista in December, 2000, was located in the Rancho Del Rey Planned Community. lt may be that within planned communities zoned and developed with lots greater than 5,000-sq. ft, it could be possible to add an accessory unit. In addition to constructing a new unit on the lot, it may be possible for a large home to be modified to allow to creation of an internal accessory second unit. For example, a five-bedroom house with three bathrooms could be converted to a four-bedroom two-bath home with a one-bedroom one bath accessory second unit within the existing building envelope. Except in the PC zones, which may have special provisions, 5,000-sq.ft. seems like a good minimum lot size for allowing additional construction and parking for an accessory unit without adversely affecting setbacks, height limits and open space in most single family neighborhoods. D. UNIT SIZE: Shall Ihe size of the accessOlY second unit be controlled by the local ordinance? Shall the number of bedrooms in an accessory second unit be controlled by the local ordinance ? It may be desirable to limit the overall size of the accessory second unit. The original state government code provisions in 1983 limited the size of the unit to 640-sq. ft. Currently, the state government code allows for a detached unit to possess up to 1,200-sq. ft. of floor area, larger than some single-family units in Chula Vista. It seems that the original floor area requirement of 640-sq. ft. is closer to an accurate depiction of the size an accessory second unit should be. Based on the minimum floor area required by our own code, a one bedroom multi-family unit is required to be a minimum 500-sq. ft., and a two- bedroom unit in an R-3 development must be a minimum 650-sq. ft. t~ .... ---........_._~,-,---_._-----".,._._-,---_.~~,_._.__.~.._.- --.- ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 6 The number of bedrooms was an issue that was addressed in the Planning Commission Code Amendment in 1983, which proposed that an accessory second unit only possess one bedroom. However, if two elderly persons, or a disabled person were to be accommodated along with one other qualifYing person, a two-bedroom unit would certainly be more appropriate, and may be necessary for handicapped access. It seems that a maximum square footage of650-sq. ft. is therefore appropriate. This would still provide for one or two bedroom units as necessary. E. LOT COVERAGE: Should lot coverage be a consideration in the accessory second unit local ordinance? Should the lot coverage requirement of the existing zoning prevail, or should they be allowed to increase fi)r certain lots, such as those that are only 4, ODD-sq. ft. in Planned Communities and 5, OOO-sq. p. prevailing in the Montgomery Specific Plan area compared to the larger lots (6,000 - 7,OOO-sq.ft. or greater) in the traditional R-J zones ofChula Vista? The issue of lot coverage is maybe more important than minimum lot size, since the lot coverage allowed may determine if an accessory second unit can even be built on the subject property. Availability would depend on how large the main single-family structure is, and how many other accessory structures already impact the property (i.e. garages, patio covers, cabanas, and workshops). In traditional R-1 zones, maximum lot coverage ranges from 40 to 50 percent total coverage allowed. In Planned Communities, the large floor areas of the main single-family structure combined with the small lot areas often results in lot coverage that range from 60 to 70 percent. The ability to include an accessory second unit on such lots is questionable. In light of the need to maintain a certain level of open space through setback requirements in single family neighborhoods, it would not be beneficial to allow lot coverage to exceed 50 percent. In Planned Communities, where lots are less than 5,000-sq. ft. and lot coverage is already over 50 percent, the accessory second unit may have to be developed within the existing building envelope, meaning no additional square footage could be added to the lot. F. OFF-STREET PARKING: What level of off-street parking is appropriate fill' accessory second units? Should the accessmy second unifs be required to provide addifional off-street parking in addition to the minimum requirementfi)r a 2-car garage? Shall access from the street be required or would a dedicated alley access be acceptahle? Shall the oU~street parking be allowed in a requiredfront or side yard setback area? Shall screening, carports, or garages be allowed or required? Shall tandem parking be allowed ifno additional parking can be provided on the site? The City has required at least one additional off-street parking space for the previously approved requests for granny flats and accessory second units. This is in compliance with the provisions of the state government code, which states that no more than one parking space can be required for accessory units. Of note, carports/garages have never been required for these type units. '" ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 7 Staff believes that the issue of off-street parking should be tied to whatever unit size limitations that are adopted. lfunits are limited to 650-sq. ft. and 1 - 2 bedrooms, one additional off-street parking space would be an appropriate requirement The added parking space should be adjacent to existing parking or an alley, and vehicles should not be allowed to park in tandem with other required parking. Although staff would not recommend that the parking for an accessory dwelling unit be under a carport or within a garage, it should be appropriately screened from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential properties Ifno additional off-street parking can be provided, it may preclude the applicant from having an accessory second unit. G. AESTHETICS: Tflhat role should aesthetics play in the consideration (!f accessory second units as part of a local ordinance:> Should the Zoning Administrator or the Design Review Committee review Ihe architecture of the accessOlY second unit (Should a conceptual landscaping plan be required)? Should units he attached or detached? Can units he above garages or be second floor units above existing single-filmily homes? Should there be controls on the visibility of the access to the accessory second Imiljrom a puhlic street, alley or private easement road? The Planning Commission's proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance in 1983 required that such units not create a second front entrance or other street side entrance that would signal the presence of the unit or to otherwise alter the single-family appearance of the property. In addition, the City Council would have further required that the accessory second unit be attached to the main dwelling structure. Of note, without the enactment of the 1983 ordinance, the City has in the past approved accessory second units above new garages, attached to the side of new garages, as well as attached or detached to the rear of the main single-family dwelling unit Requiring that all accessory second units be attached to, or detached from, the main dwelling structure might be overly restrictive given the wide range of options that properties have in terms of topography, lot size and surrounding uses. lt seems that the City's design review process could adequately address the compatibility of a proposed accessory second unit with the site and its surroundings. With a clear set of development standards to regulate an accessory unit, it would be appropriate to allow the Zoning Administrator to review and approve the design of the proposed unit H. UTILITY CONNECTIONS: Shall utility connections he a consideration in the accessory second unit local ordinance? Should the accessmy unit utilities be tied to the main single-fami/y unit or possess separate connections with regard to water, sewer and electric meter connections? Accessory second units, just as all residential additions, are assessed development impact fees due to their cumulative effect on infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewer systems, traffic impacts, parks etc.). In addition, an evaluation of the adequacy of public facilities for all of the above issues is already a part of the permit evaluation for all accessory second units, utilizing the same criteria used for all new residential developments. 17 ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGES It is not a requirement that water and sewer connections for an accessory unit be separate from the main unit. For example, an apartment building or a commercial building is allowed to have only one water or sewer tap into the main lines within a street. According to the City Engineering Division, new saddles for additional water and sewer laterals would hasten the deterioration of existing water and sewer mains. The only separate utility connection that would necessarily be required might be a separate electric meter, for billing purposes. A separate address should be the prerogative of the property owner. 1. EXCLUSIONS: Shall accessory second units be limited or exempted from certain specific geographic planning areas and/or neighborhood communities of the City? Should accessory second units be limited to those areas of the City that are zoned R-l and excluded from areas that are zoned R-2 and R-3, even though those lols may only contain single family homes? State law requires that specific health and safety findings be made if a local agency wishes to exclude any residentially zoned areas from the provisions for accessory second units. In Chula Vista, two-family and multi-family zones can provide additional units by way of Design Review; therefore the only benefit to applying for an accessory second unit would only be to reduce development standards, such as parking. A finding could easily be made that multi-family zones already allow more than one unit on a lot and therefore do not require accessory second unit provlSlons. Other than the single-family PC zones discussed previously, staff is unaware of any definable areas in the City that could exclude accessory units under the provisions of state law. Future studies by the General Plan update team or the City's Growth Management Oversight Committee could someday identity areas less suited to accessory units due to traffic congestion or inadequate infrastructure. In the mean time, all A, R-E, and R-l zones would seem to be eligible for accessory second units. 1. DISCRETIONARY PERMIT: By what discretionary permit mechanism should accessory second units be approved? Should the process (if sending Conditional Use Permits to Planning Commission continue, or should the Zoning Administrator be allowed to approve accessory second units? What puhlic notice process is appropriate? Should the application be advertised in a new,lpaper (!fgeneral circulation. even if a vublic hearinf! is not required bv the adovted avvroval [Jolicv (e. g ifit is determined that the Conditional Use Permit may be decided upon by the Zoning Administrator, rather the Desi!,'I1 Review Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council) for all accessory second unit applications? As discussed earlier in this paper, it may be appropriate to allow the Zoning Administrator to review and approve these type units if the accompanying regulations can better insure that the new unit will be accessory to the main house. Such actions could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. As an alternative the City may decide that it would be preferable that these units go to public hearings before the Design Review Committee andlor Planning Commission for approval. Whatever process is selected there is still an issue with the level of public noticing that would be ISo ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 9 appropriate Even for an administrative permit, staff would notifY property owners within 500 feet of an applicant's property. However, as part of recent applications there has been public testimony alleging that accessory units are of significant city-wide interest that each should be noticed in the newspaper. Again, with additional regulations to limit the scope and impact of an accessory unit, a local mail-out may be an adequate level of noticing. SUMMARY /RECOMMENDA TION: Staff is ready to draft an ordinance for public hearing to establish local control of accessory dwelling units. Said ordinance would include the following elements unless directed otherwise by the Planning Commission. A. AFFORDABILITY: There would not be any stipulations, such as rent control on accessory second units B. OCCUPANCY: There would not be any stipulations, such as owner-occupancy on accessory second units. In addition no stipulations as to their use by seniors, relatives, disabled persons, students, etc will be included. C. LOT SIZE: There would be a stipulation that a lot be a minimum size of5,000-sq. ft. in order to qualifY for an accessory second unit. D. UNIT SIZE: There would be a stipulation that the accessory second unit size be a maximum of 650-sq. ft. to ensure that the unit will truly function as an accessory second unit to a main dwelling unit. E. LOT COVERAGE: There would be a stipulation that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit on any single-family zoned lot would not result in lot coverage exceeding 50 percent. An exception would be made for lots in a PC zone that already allow lot coverage greater than 50 percent, in which case an accessory second unit would not be allowed ifit would result in lot coverage greater than stipulated maximum (i.e. 50 to 70 percent) F. OFF-STREET PARKING: There would be a minimum one off-street parking space provided, and it shall not be provided in tandem or within a setback The off-street parking space does not require a carport or garage but should be appropriately screened from view. G. AESTHETICS: The Zoning Administrator will be given authority to review the design of accessory second unit to ensure the compatibility of the accessory second unit with the main dwelling unit. A conceptual landscape plan shall also be required and reviewed. H. UTILITY CONNECTIONS: The water and sewer service for the accessory second unit will be required from the laterals connected to the main dwelling unit, but a separate electric meter and address may be provided. 1. EXCLUSIONS: Accessory second units will be precluded from Two-Family and Multi-Family I' ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 10 zones (R-2, R-3). Also, accessory second units will be precluded from all Planned Community Multi-Family Zones, as well as Planned Communities Single-Family zones where lots possess less than 5,000-sq. ft, unless the Planned Community General Development Plan contains express provisions that allow for the development of accessory second units. Exceptions will be made for accessory second units developed within the building envelope of the existing approved structure where parking can be provided. 1 DISCRETIONARY PERMn': The Zoning Administrator will approve accessory second units by way of an administrative design review permit. A public notice will be sent to all property owners within 500-ft. Upon request, the Zoning Administrator will hold a public meeting for all interested persons regarding the proposal prior to making a decision. The Zoning Administrator's decision may then be appealed within 10 days of the decision to the Planning Commission. .J ;\PLANNING\IIAROLD\OTHER\PCWORKSHOP2NDUNlTS..JS2.DOC .4.D ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE II APPENDIX A: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE . GRANNY FLAT LEGISLATION . ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT LEGISLATION Currently, the state government code provides that accessory second units shall be allowed in all charter cities, counties and cities if they meet the below stated criteria for (I) granny flats, whichmav be approved by use of a discretionary permit and (2) accessory second units, which shall be approved according to the following provisions: I. Granny Flats: The state government code (65852.1) allows for "granny flats "---defined as dwelling units intendedfor the sole occupancy hyone or two adult persons who are 62 years of age or older, to be constructed in any charter city, county, or city (local agency), which may be approved by way of a zoning variance, special use permit or conditional use permit, attached or detached to a primary residence on a parcel zoned for single-family residence. The only criteria for such a development is: a. An attached unit not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area, or b. A detached unit does not exceed 1,200-sq. ft. of floor space. 2. Accessorv second units: The provisions for "granny flats" does not prevent any charter city, county or city from creating its own ordinance to permit accessory second units in general for all single and multi-family zones. The intent of the "granny flat" legislation (sub-section 65852.150) is to encourage local agencies to adopt their own second-unit ordinance, recognizing the need for provisions related to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, but not so arhitrary, excessive, or hurdensome so as to unreasonahly restrict the ahility of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized hy local ordinance. The legislation declares that second units are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing forfamily memhers, students, the elderly, in-home health providers, the disahled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. The following section of government code (65852.2), paraphrased, italicized, and underlined for emphasis and or clarity as it relates to this issue paper, sets forth the standards and/or criteria that a local agency may use to evaluate accessory second units in absence of its own ordinance or to utilize in the creation of its own ordinance: a) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory second units in single- family and multi-family zones. The ordinance: 1) May designate areas where accessory second units may be permitted based on such issues as adequacy of water and sewer services, and impacts on traffic; 2) May impose standards for parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architecture, and maximum ;;J..f ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGEI2 size of unit; 3) May provide that accessory second units do not exceed the allowahle density for the lot, and Ihat the accessory second units are consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designation; 4) May establish a procedure for the issuance of a conditional use permit; 5) Shall not he considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy or program to limit residential growth; b) (1) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July 1, 1983 or within 120 days after receiving its first application, every local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use permit for the creation of an accessory second unit if the unit complies with all of the following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale or mav be rented: (8) The lot is zoned for single-familv or multi-familv use: (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling: (D) The accessol)' seconcLunit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot: (E) The increased floor area of the attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area: (F) The total area of the detached unit does not exceed] ,200-sq. ft. (G) Requirements related to height. setback, lot coverage. architectural review. site plan review. fees, charges. and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone: (H) Local building code requirements to detached dwellings. as appropriate: (I) Approval b.,yJocal health officer if private sewage disposal system is utilized: 2) No other local ordinance, policy or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision; 3) This subdivision establishes the !)1aximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed accessory second units on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. No additional standardl' other than those provided in this suhdivision shall he utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant to he an owner-occupant. 4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the General Plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or General Plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of accessory second units if consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. 5) An accessory second unit that conforms with the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deem consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation of the lot. The accessory second unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy or program to limit r~sidential growth. c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance Ihat totally precludes accessory second units in single- family or multi:family zoned areas, unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the allowing accesso~econd units may limit housing opportunities of the region and further find that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare would result from allowing accessorv second units in single-familv and multi-family zones. iustifY adoPting the ordinance. d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size for both attached and detached accessory second units, but no minimum or maximum size shall be based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling that does not permit at least an efficiencv unit in compliance with local st<!ndards. ..L.2.. ........--.-....-.---..--- ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 13 e) Parking requirements for accessory second units shall not exceed one space per unit or bedroom. Additional parking may be required provided that a finding can be made that the additional parking requirement is directly related to the use of the accessory second unit and is consistent with the existing neighborhood standards. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined bv the local agency or through tandem parking. unless specific findings are made that parki!)g in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. 1) Fees charged for accessory second units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (state government code section 66000). g) This section does not limit the authoritv oflocal agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of accessoCLsecond units. h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60-days after adoption. i) As used in this section, the following terms mean: 1) "Living Area," means interior habitable area of dwelling, including basements and attics but not garages or non-habitable accessory structures; 2) "Local Agency" means city, county, city and county, whether general law or charter; 3) "Neighborhood" as set forth in Section 65589.5; 4) "Second Unit" means accessory second unit (as substituted here) defined as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It ~hall include permanent provisions for living. sleeping. eating. cooking. and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the following: A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.] of Health and Safety Code; B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. .;L) ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 14 APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL SUMMARY Granny Flats andlor Accessory second units (1983 - 1999): In Chula Vista, the issue of preparing a local ordinance-addressing accessory second unit was recognized by the Planning Department The Planning Director initiated a workshop and there were at least three subsequent Planning Commission hearings that were held addressing the potential ordinance. A draft ordinance (PCA-83-5) was prepared by staff, which incorporated many public comments as well as those ofthe Planning Commissioners. The draft ordinance for accessory second units was approved by the Planning Commission and presented to the City Council in July 1983. The draft ordinance approved by the Planning Commission allowed for the development ofa detached or attached accessory second unit by way of a Zoning Administrative Conditional Use Pennit (CUP). There would be an age restriction for seniors, but the unit would not require any additional off-street parking. The Planning Commission proposal also required the recordation of the CUP to the affected property. It also required automatic review within a one-year period for the provisions to be formally reviewed or automatically expire as part of a sunset clause. The draft ordinance was approved in July 1983 by the City Council (by a 3-2 vote), but included amendments requiring that an off-street parking space be provided and it deleted the option of a detached accessory second unit However, the City Council also moved to file the proposed ordinance until the City received the first application for an accessory second unit. In September 1983 an application for an accessory second unit was filed with the City, and the Planning Director reported to the City Council that the City had 120 days to adopt an ordinance or process the application based on the state prescribed standards. The Planning Director informed the City Council that he would take the draft ordinance back to the Planning Commission including the requirement for an off-street parking space and deleting the option for a detached unit. Another issue raised was whether the applications would require review by the Zoning Administrator, Design Review Committee, or City Council. Of note, at the same City Council meeting in September] 983, a substitute motion was made by the City Council that would allow the City's provisions for "dwelling groups" on lots possessing twice the minimum lot area to contain a second family unit (double-size lots) to be the City's local compliance with state requirements for accessory second units. In October ] 983 the Planning Commission held a public hearing in consideration of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an accessory second unit ordinance with an off-street parking requirement, but deleting the requirement for the units to be attached to the main unit In November 1983 the City Council held a public hearing to adopt the accessory second unit ordinance. The City Council voted to uphold their substitute motion from September, where it was determined that the City's provisions for dwelling group would provide local compliance with state requirements for accessory second units. The decision of the City Council to utilize the dwelling .L'f ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGElS group provisions of the code until such time that a local ordinance could be finalized was inconclusive for two main reasons: 1. A "dwelling group" development must meet all the same criteria (if a "stand-alone" single- family or two~family development, including the minimum lot area, sethacks, parking and .'pacingfrom the existing unit so as 10 allow thefuture suhdivision of the land. A dwelling group requires a Conditional Use Permit in the R-E and R-I zones and is permitted by right in the R-2 zone. In addition, all dwelling group units must meet floor area requirements for a full-fledged single or two-family dwelling unit (I ,OOO-sq. ft. in R-E and R-l zones), along with the required front, side and rear yard setbacks, off-street parking (including two-car garage for each unit since 1986), access roads, guest parking, and private usable open space. Further, there are no requirements imposed on dwelling groups that they be maintained as accessory second units, so that the development is able to become a stand-alone property in the event that the single- ownership lot is subdivided in the future. 2. An accessory second unit is not required tojimction as a "dwelling group" unit as outlined in state regulations. The great majority of single-family and two-family properties do not possess twice the minimum lot size of the underlying zone and therefore cannot be developed into "dwelling groups" in order to provide an accessory second unit per state government code. Such a difficult requirement could be construed as one that is arbitrary. excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the abilitv of homeowners to create second units in zones in which thev are authorized bv local ordinanc.~, according to state guidelines. In addition, the accessory second unit legislation also states that the implementation of local regulations cannot totallv preclude accessory second units in single-familv or multi-family zoned areas without findings specificallv stating the adverse impacts 9n the public health, safety. and welfare. Therefore, the reliance on a dwelling group as a requirement for accessory second units without proper findings could be discriminatory against persons without "double-sized" lots, if the end result would be to exclude such properties from containing accessory second units because the lot did not possess twice the minimum lot area of the underlying zone. The Council asked that the issue be brought back to them in a year (1984) to see how other communities were handling the issue and to get more background information. However, there were no minutes found to determine that there was any follow-up to this request. In addition, a record of the accessory second unit application made in September] 983 has yet to be located. Of note, the code amendment ordinance that was finalized by the Planning Commission on October 26, 1983 would have brought the City into conformance with the state government code guidelines. It would have allowed accessory second units where owner-occupancy was retained on the property and where the conditions of approval would have been recorded to the title report. The accessory second unit would have been allowed for a maximum two adults, with one at least 60 years of age or having a physical handicap, containing one bedroom and a kitchen within a maximum floor area of 640-sq. ft. In addition, the unit would have to be able to be built in conformance with all of the existing zoning standards applicable to R-l and R-E zones, and the unit would not be allowed on lots that L) ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 16 accommodated guesthouses or converted garages (Of note, this was prior to the two-car garage requirement for any new development in any R-E, R-l and R-2 zones adopted in 1986). Also, the accessory second unit would not be able to create a second front entrance or other street side entrance that would signal the presence of the unit or otherwise alter the single family appearance of the property. The Zoning Administrator would have been given the authorization to grant the Conditional Use Permit without setting the matter for a public hearing. Guesthouses andlor Extra Livinl,! Ouarters (1983 - 1999): Since the City Council never approved the code amendment ordinance, apparently no permits had been granted utilizing state government code requirements for accessory second units during this period. However, there is a record found within City Council minutes of August 27, 1985 concerning a guesthouse that had been utilized as an accessory second unit in the R-l zone, located at 718 Elm Avenue, where the owner requested that granny flats, guesthouses, cottages, or extra living quarters be allowed in the City. The owner was requested to contact the Planning Department for background information into their study of guest homes being prepared in response to City Council action related to guest homes. In 1985, the zoning code was amended with an emergency ordinance with the statement: Not withstanding any provisions of the Code to the contrary, "guesthouses" may not be constructed within the City after July 23, 1985 under section 19.02.050. This moratorium was repealed on April ] 6, 1986, and although the code still contains the above statement, guesthouses are permitted as accessory uses in the R-E zone, where the minimum lot size is 20,000-sq ft. except in Planned Communities. The guesthouse is allowed if they are at least 10-ft. from the main stmctures per the accessory stmcture requirements under section 19.58.020(D), although the requirements also state that accessory stmctures cannot be equipped for use as living quarters under section 19.58.020(C). The code definition for a guesthouse is that it is a detached living quarters without kitchen or cooking facilities intended for occasional guests of the occupants of the main building, not to exceed 90-days for any guest over a one-year period that cannot be rented, leased, or let for any direct or indirect compensation under section 19.04.] 06. Of course, the above noted guest house at 718 Elm Avenue was a prohibited use in the R-l zone, unless it was built prior to the code requirement to be located in the R-E zone. It is possible that some guesthouses may have been constmcted prior to their prohibition in R-l zones, with or without kitchen facilities for use as accessory second units, or, that some ofthese guesthouses may have been converted to complete accessory second units during this period. It is also possible that permitted guesthouses in the R-E zone may have been built with the intent to convert them to accessory second units in the future, or may have been illegally converted to include complete living facilities, including a kitchen during this period. The fact that there was no set policy for accessory second units during this period may have led to the common belief that such units were prohibited in absence of the possibility for an applicant to add a :L(' -.-....--.-....-.-..--..---..-- _....._-~--_._-_."_._-_._--~---_.".._.... ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 17 guesthouse, or to develop a dwelling group per the City Council decision in 1983. In addition, according to Code Enforcement information to be provided, there may have been many attached and detached garages, workshops or other accessory structures converted to accessory second units without benefit of a building permit during this period, because applicants may have been discouraged from applying for accessory second units in absence of being able to meet guesthouse provisions in the R-E zone or the dwelling group provisions in R-] zones. During this period the City also incorporated the Montgomery area from the County, which did have provisions to allow for accessory second units without a dwelling group from 1983 until the 1988 annexation, and there are many properties possessing permitted accessory second units in this area. ~1 ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 18 APPENDIX C: GRANNY FLATS/AcCESSORY SECOND UNITS CASES 2000 - 2001: In recognition of the fact that there was no provisions in the code for accessory second units as allowed under state government code provisions, the Planning Department began the process of preparing an accessory second unit ordinance in JanualY 2000. The initial draft ordinance that was prepared in March 2000 would have replaced the dwelling group provision requiring lots to possessed twice the lot area or be "double-lots," if the purpose of the application was to build an accessory second dwelling unit. In absence of an approved ordinance, the City began accepting applications for "granny flats." In December 2000, the Planning Department processed the first two application received, and has subsequently processed two more applications. The first four cases were processed administratively as "granny flats," or for exclusive use by persons 62-years of age or older in conformance with the specific State Government Code section pertaining to "granny flats." Zoning AdministratorlGranny Flats: 1. Timothy Stutler, 513 Padera Way (PCC-O 1-27), a 390-sq. ft. attached second unit where the existing 3-car garage deemed adequate to address additional one-space off-street parking required for unit; 2. Guadalupe Zimmerly, 290 Shasta Street, (PCC-01-29), a 263-sq. ft. attached second unit, where the existing 2-car garage deemed adequate to address additional one-space off-street parking required for unit; 3. Jerald Chacon, 215 Camino Del Cerro Grande (PCC-01-45), a 600-sq. ft. detached second unit above new garage, where a new 2-car garage in addition to the existing 2-car garage adequately addressed additional one-space off-street parking; 4. Taiser Farha, 477 Second Avenue (PCC-01-46), a 265-sq. ft. detached second unit attached to existing garage, where the existing 2-car garage deemed adequate to address additional one-space off-street parking required for unit; The following cases have not been processed administratively, and did not have stipulations requiring use by any specific persons, such as "granny flats" (persons 62-years of age or older). In addition, these items were approved at public hearings held by the Planning Commission: :2..'l -_..""'----_._.,-----"-- -.-....,.-,......-..,-,.-----.,--.-- - ->-,.'-.--------.---. ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 19 Public Hearing/Accessory Second Units: 5. Salvadore Vera, 257 K Street (PCC-O I-58), a 556-sq. ft detached second unit, where a new 2-car garage is to replace existing I-car garage to address additional one-space off-street parking required; 6. Alfonso Hernandez, 115 Second Avenue (PCC-02-06), a 468-sq. ft. detached second unit above a new 3-car garage to address parking requirements for the main unit and the additional one-space off-street parking required for the accessOlY second unit; 7. Andreas Basimakopoulos, 192 Minot Avenue (PCC-02-02), a I, 180-sq. ft. detached second unit attached to a new two-car garage to address the parking requirements for the main unit and two off-street parking spaces will be provided next to the garage for the accessory second unit; On Hold or Pending: The following cases have either been put on hold at the request of the applicant (No.8 is waiting for ofa local ordinance establishing specific standards for accessory second units), or are pending in the process of approval: 8. Lidia Tapia, 688 Mission Court (PCC-O] -63), a 1 080-sq. ft. detached second unit, where an existing 2-car garage and one additional off-site parking space was deemed necessary to address the off-street parking requirement, unless the size of the second unit could be reduced by at least half the requested square footage so that the existing two-car garage could adequately address the off-street parking requirement. 9. Isabel Contreras, 736 Church Street (PCC-02-13), a 650-sq. ft. detached second unit, where an existing 2-car garage is proposed to address the off-street parking requirement for both the main dwelling unit and the accessory second unit. ] O. Lorrain Marticke, 437 Elm Avenue (PCC-02-20), an ], 196-sq. ft. detached second unit (manufactured home), where an existing two-car garage and an additional off-street parking space to the side of the garage is proposed to address the off-street parking requirement. 11. Noemi Alema, 577 Vance Street (DRC-01-49), a ] ,200-sq. ft. detached second unit where an existing two-car garage and one additional off-street parking space to the side of the garage is proposed to address the off-street parking requirement. The eleven (11) cases that have been accepted, reviewed or approved provide at least four good examples of why a local ordinance governing the implementation of the accessory second unit provisions is necessary. The following are issues that must be addressed in the future ordinance: 1. Retroactive Permitting: In case No.4, the applicant was required to submit an accessory second unit application by the Code Enforcement Division because it was already constructed without a .;l1 ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE20 building permit. There will be many more ofthese cases coming from Code Enforcement actions where the accessory sec.ond units have already been built in the City, where the application for a building permit will require a conditional use permit. The CUP requirements for design, location, and parking requirements may make it impossible to permit these existing units in some cases. 2. Confbrmance with Development Standard,': In case NO.5 the applicant struggled to design a detached unit that would simultaneously meet the building and zoning code requirements for allowable lot coverage in a rear yard, the two-car garage requirement, and all setback and building separation requirements. A local ordinance could retain or alter the requirements for accessory second units per the zoning code. There was also considerable neighborhood scrutiny as to the location of the unit, to ensure that the structure would be hidden from view (as was contemplated by the Planning Commission in 1983) from the street and allow the single-family character of the neighborhood to be retained. 3. Unit Size and Parking: In cases No.8, the applicant sought to build a 1,080-sq. ft. unit approaching the maximum allowable size per the state government code for detached units (may be up to a maximum 1,200-sq. ft. floor area), with three bedrooms The application was met with considerable neighborhood scrutiny due to the size of the unit as well as parking concerns. In this case, an additional ofl~site parking space along with the existing two-car garage was deemed necessary by staff, unless the unit size could be reduced by half or more of the total area proposed. However, the off-site parking provisions determined by the zoning code require only a two-car garage, even though the accessory second unit was approaching the size ofthe main single-family structure. The size of unit and parking requirements must be further developed. Cases No. 9 and 10 also present the same off-street parking space issues. The allowance for parking within a required setback is an issue that needs to be addressed. 4. Density on T\jJo-Family andMulti-Family Zoned Lots: In cases No.'s 6,7, and] I the properties are located on R-2 Two-Family Zoned lots. If the applicants desired to develop additional units in conformance with their zoning, more units in addition to the accessorv unit could be added without counting the accessory second unit as an existing dwelling unit against the zoning and general plan (All accessory second units are exempt from density regulations). In the case ofR-2 dwelling units, an applicant could also circumvent the two-car garage requirements by calling a duplex or dwelling group unit (permitted by right in the R-2 zone) an accessory second unit. In R-3 zones, ofl~street parking is based on the number of bedrooms, so a two-bedroom unit would require 2 off-street parking spaces, but would only need one off-street parking space as an accessory second unit. It seems that the provisions to allow more units is already provided for in virtually all R-2 and R-3 zones, unless there was an inconsistency with the General Plan Land Use Designation stipulating that only one unit could be built in the R-2 or R-3 zoned property. Otherwise, it seems to the use of accessory second units in these zones is redundant and should be prohibited. Case No. II also present the same problem with regard to the two-car garage parking requirement not being required with the accessory second unit in an R-2 zone, where that is a normal requirement of a second dwelling unit not utilizing the state government code exemption. Of note, the unit could not be developed without accessory second unit provisions because the General Plan would not allow a duplex or second unit group dwelling as a result of the Land Use Designation being 3 - 6 dwelling units per acres and the lot size being only 6,000-sq. ft. 1" ,.~_~_.m..~.___._.______.,,_.__. _________.__._.._.._~_~__. ______u.<____ ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 21 APPENDIX D: HOUSING CRISIS The median price ofa single-family home hit a record $275,000 for San Diego County in September of this year (SDUT 10/12/01), while only approximately 25 percent of all households in San Diego County can qualifY for the median price single-family home (SDUT 5/1510 I). In addition, the median price for new homes rose from 276,982 to $3 13,389 from August 2000 to August 2001, a 13 percent increase (SD UT 10/18/01) Also, the cost of living in the San Diego region is now documented at 27 percent higher than the average for the rest of the United States, while incomes and buying power are only on average (SDUT 7/21/01). Statistics also reveal that the after-tax income per household for San Diegan's is $39,213, a hair below the median of$39,598 for 302 metro areas. The housing cost are 64.5 percent above the national norm, and the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association states that San Diego has the sixth highest cost of living in the nation. A more recent report ranks San Diego 130, among the nation's least affordable metropolitan areas (SDUT 10/3/01) In the same report, a San Diego County worker must earn more than three times the state minimum wage to pay rent on a typical two-bedroom unit, based on the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing and wage standard that housing costs should be no more than 30 percent of gross household income. This is an increase of21 percent over the previous year, when San Diego only ranked 25'1, among high-rent communities. The HUD standard of30 percent is no longer attainable for minimum wage workers, who spend much larger percentages of their incomes on rent (SDUT 10/310 I). This cost of homeownership and rental housing is partially due to the fact that residential construction, varticularlv multi-family residential construction, has failed to keep pace with population growth. In Chula Vista, the population increased by almost 30 percent between] 990 and 2000, from 133,437 to ] 72,477. Meanwhile, housing units built in that same time period only increased from 49,849 units to 59,581 units, or almost 20 percent (SDUT 6/24/01). This has resulted in a housing gap (the difference between the change or increase in population and new housing units) of almost 10 percent between 1990 and 2000 in Chula Vista (SDUT 6/24/01). According to SANDAG, the San Diego region will need 365,000 new housing units to absorb an anticipated 942,000 additional residents by 2020, and under present forecasts, the region will fall short by more than 100,000 units (SDUT 10/3/01). It is expected that Chula Vista will inevitably absorb much ofthis growth, due to the more affordable housing stock being generally located within the South Bay region of the County. Fewer persons in general, but more acutely seniors, single parent or single-income households and minorities must pay rent and cannot afford homeownership. The result is that the housing shortage has severely affected the overall vacancies of existing houses, condominiums, and apartments for rent to crisis levels. 31 ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE22 In San Diego County, almost 50 percent of all households are rentals (SOUT 6/26/01). Currently, the rental market is at a 2 percent vacancy rate. The tight rental market has caused rents to also skyrocket along with new and used for-sale housing costs, with the average cost of a typical 2- bedroom apartment listed at $] ,050 per month, while almost 50 percent of all renter households cannot afford the market rent for such a 2-bedroom unit in San Diego County (SOUT 6/26/01). It is important to consider these facts when considering the potential use and future demand for accessory second units. According to the statistics, over 20 percent of all rental households are paying more than 50 percent of their income for the rental housing. Noteworthy with regards to the potential users of accessory second units, it is most likely that persons spending more than 50 percent of their household income may seek living accommodations in an accessory second unit. As such, it is noted that over 25 percent ofthose households are minority households, over 30 percent are single- parent or single-income households, and over 35 percent are senior households who are paying more than half of their income for rental housing in San Oiego County (SOUT 6/26/01). ~"l.. ISSUE PAPER: ACCESSORY SECOND UNITS PAGE 22 In San Diego County, almost 50 percent of all households are rentals (SDUT 6/26/0 I). Currently, the rental market is at a 2 percent vacancy rate. The tight rental market has caused rents to also skyrocket along with new and used for -sale housing costs, with the average cost of a typical 2- bedroom apartment listed at $1,050 per month, -while almost 50 percent of all renter households cannot afford the market rent for such a 2-bedroom unit in San Diego County (SDUT 6/26/01). It is important to consider these facts when considering the potential use and future demand for accessory second units. According to the statistics, over 20 percent of all rental households are paying more than 50 percent of their income for the rental housing. Noteworthy with regards to the potential users of accessory second units, it is most likely that persons spending more than 50 percent of their household income may seek living accommodations in an accessory second unit. As such, it is noted that over 25 percent ofthose households are minority households, over 30 percent are single- parent or single-income households, and over 3 5 percent are senior households who are paying more than half of their income for rental housing in San Diego County (SDUT 6/26/0 I). , .1 :1 I! I I ! I ; I ~L. .~___"'______'_._"___~'_'_._' H A- .s-1"A #7 0'/ ~ ?'f! t, G ATTAC.HMB.AlT 1 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2002 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2002 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 19, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 23, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 14,2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRJL], 2002 CALIFORNIA LEGJSLATURE-2001--D2 REGULAR SESS10N ASSEMBLY BILL No, 1866 Introduced by Assembly Member Wright January 31, 2002 An act to amend Sections 65583.],65852.2, and 65915 of the Government Code, relating to housing. LEGISLATIVE COlJNSEL'S DIGEST A13 ]866, as amended, Wright. Housing: density bonuses. (I) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the housing element of the general plan ofa city or county, among other things, to identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobilehomes, and to make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. That law permits the Department of Housing and CommunIty Development to allow a city or county to identifY adequate sites by a variety of methods. This bill would authorize the department to also allow a city or county to identifY sites for 2nd units based upon relevant factors, including the number of 2nd units developed in the prior housing element planning period. @he Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units on parcels zoned for a primary single-family and multifamily residence, as prescribed. This bill would require, when a local agency receives its first application on or afterJuly 1, 2003, that the ordinance provide for ministerial approval application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review of applications for 2nd units that meet the requirements of the ordinance or hearing, notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances or special use permits. 771e bill would authorize a local agency to charge afee to reimburse the agency for costs it incurs as a result at these pruvisions. (3) The Planning and Zoning Law also requires, when a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units within the development if the developer meets ~~ @ specified requirements Existing law requires the local government to establish procedures for carrying out these provisions. This bill would revise those provisions to refer to an applicant who proposes a housing development and would recast them to, among other things, revise criteria for making written findings that a concession or incentive is not required, add criteria for continued affordability of housing in a condominium project, authorize an applicant to request a meeting on its proposal for a specific density bonus, incentive, or concession or for the waiver or reduction of development standards, and exempt developments meeting certain affordability criteria from specified laws. By increasing the duties oflocal public officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also authorize an applicant to initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession in violation of these provisions, and would require the court to award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. It would authorize a local agency to charge afee to reimburse itfor costs that it incurs as a result of these provisions. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $] ,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions (4) 771e Califomia Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a spec!fied reason. Vote: majority Approp: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State ofCal!fornia do enact as follows: -SECTION 1 )prt;rm """S3 1 of the GoveTIJmpnt rnnf> is ameIJded to re.a(L65i81.,~ The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a pro or adopted housing element for compliance with state law, may allow a c' county to identify adequate sites, as required pursuant to Section 6558 variety of methods, including, but not limited to, redesignation of pro 0 a more intense land use category and increasing the density allow It in one or more categories. The department may also allowa.cit county to identify sites for second units'oased on the number of second units e oped in the prior housing element planning period whE'ther or not the units permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resourc mcentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department. Nothing in this section reduces the responsibility of a city td/A 3Y @ or county to identifv, by income category, the total number of sites for residential development as required by this article. --- (b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoin closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law] 00-526), th efense Base Closure and Realignment Act of] 990 (Public Law ]0]-510), or any sub quent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as a adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be avai ble for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No 'tes containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to non esidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site. Any city, city and county, or county using this subdivision shall a ress the progress in meeting this section in the reports provided pursuant to paragrap (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65400. (c) (]) The Department of Housing and Co unity Development may allow a city or county to substitute the provision of units for p to 25 percent of the community's obligation to identifY adequate sites for any i come category in its housing element pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) ofS ction 65583 if the community includes in its housing element a program committing e local government to provide units in that income category within the city or coun that will be made available through the provision of committed assistance duro g the planning period covered by the element to low- and very low income household at affordable housing costs or affordable rents, as defined in Sections 50052 and 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, and which meet the requirements of ragraph (2). Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the community may sub Itute one dwelling unit for one dwelling unit site in the applicable income category. he program shall do all of the following: (A) Identify the specific, existing so ces of committed assistance and dedicate a specific portion of the funds from those so ces to the provision of housing pursuant to this subdivision. (B) Indicate the number of un' s that will be provided to both low- and very low income households and demonstrat that the amount of dedicated funds is sufficient to develop the units at affordable ho ing costs or affordable rents. (C) Demonstrate that t units meet the requirements of paragraph (2). (2) Only units that comply with sub agraph (A), (B), or (C) qualify for inclusion in the housing element program d cribed in paragraph (1), as follows (A) Units that ar 0 be substantially rehabilitated with committed assistance from the city or county d constitute a net increase in the community's stock of housing affordable to owand very low income households. For purposes of this subparagraph, a unit is not Igible to be "substantially rehabilitated" unless all of the following requirem ts are met: (i) At the time the unit is identified for substantial rehabilitation, (1) the loc government has determined that the unit is at imminent risk ofloss to the housi g stock, (ll) the local government has committed to provide relocation assistance pur ant to Chapter ]6 (commenc;c:,: ,,,;th Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1 to any o cupants temporarily or permanently displaced by the rehabilitation or code enforcement activity, (III) the local government requires that any displaced occupants will have the right to reoccupy the rehabilitated units, and (IV) the unit has been cited and )5' \J f @ fou-;'id by the locar-code entorcemem agmcyoraCbOft toDeUfi1'irforimman habitati and vacated or subject to being vacated because of the existence for not less than 12 days offour of the conditions listed in subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 17995.3 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii).:rhe rehabilitated unit will have Ion erm affordability covenants and restrictions that require the unit to be available to, d occupied by, persons or families of low- or very low income at affordable ho ing costs for at least 20 years or the time period required by any applicable federal or tate law or regulation, except that if the period is less than 20 years, only one unit sh be credited as an identified adequate site for every three units rehabilitated pursuant to his section, and no credit shall be allowed for a unit required to remain affordable for I ss than 10 years. (iii) Prior to initial occupancy after rehabilitation, the local code enD cement agency shall issue a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with a applicable state and local building code and health and safety code requirements. (B) Units that are located in a multifamily rental housing co lex of 16 or more units, are converted with committed assistance from the city or c nty from nonaffordable to affordable by acquisition of the unit or the purchase of a rdability covenants and restrictions for the unit, are not acquired by .eminent do ain, and constitute a net increase in the community's stock of housing affordable to 10 and very low income households. For purposes of this subparagraph, a unit is not cony, rted by acquisition or the purchase I of affordability covenants unless all of the followi g occur: (i) The unit is made available at a cost affordable to low- or very low income useholds. (ii) At the time the unit is ,,) ~ identified for acquisition, the unit is not availa e at a cost affordable to low- or very low \'" income households. (iii) At the time the uni IS identified for acquisition the unit is not occupied by low- or very low income hou holds. (iv) The unit is in decent, safe, and sanitary condition at the time of occup y. (v) The acquisition price is not greater than ]20 percent of the median price for ho sing units in the city or county. (vi) The unit has long-term affordability covenants an restrictions that require the unit to be affordable to persons of low or very low income or not less than 30 years. (C) Units that will be preserve at affordable housing costs to persons or families of low- or very low incomes with co mitted assistance from the city or county by acquisition of the unit or the purchase of fordability covenants for the unit. For purposes of this subparagraph, a unit sha not be deemed preserved unless all of the following occur: (i) The unit has long-te affordability covenants and restrictions that require the unit to be affordable to and served for occupancy by persons of the same or lower income group as the CUfre occupants for a period of at least 40 years. (ii) The unit is multifamily rent housing that receives governmental assistance under any of the following state d federal programs: Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 US.e. S . 17151(d)(3) and (5)); Section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 USe. Sec. 1715z- ); Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.s.C. Sec. 170Iq); forrent suppleme assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as mended (12 USe. Sec. 1701s); under Section 515 of the Housing Act of1949, as ame ded (42 U.s.e. Sec. 1485); and any new construction, substantia] rehabilitation, mod ate rehabilitation, property disposition, and loan management set-aside programs, or a yother program providing project-based assistance, under Section 8 of the United ~~ (f) States Housing Act of 19'37 as amended (4) IT" (' "pc 1417(\' anv state and local..- multifamily revenue bond programs; local redevelopment programs; the federal Community Development Block Grant Program; and other local housing assistance programs or units that were used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Sectio 65916. (iii) The city or county finds, after a public hearing, that the unit is eligi e, and is reasonably expected, to change from housing affordable to low- and very low' come households to any other use during the next five years due to termination of bsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. (iv) e unit is in decent, safe, and sanitary condition at the time of occupancy. (v) At the me the unit is identified for preservation it is available at affordable cost to persons 0 families oflow- or very low income. (3) This subdivision does not apply to any city county that, during the current or immediately prior planning period, as defmed y Section 65588, has not met any of its share of the regional need for affordable housin , as defined in Section 65584, for low- and very low income households. A city or cou y shall document for any such housing unit that a building permit has been issued all development and permit fees have been paid or the unit is eligible to be lawfu occupied. (4) For purposes of this subdivision, "committed assistance" me s that the city or county enters into a legally enforceable agreement during the fir two years of the housing element planning period that obligates sufficient availa e funds to provide the assistance necessary to make the identified units affordable and at requires that the units be made available for occupancy within two years of the ex uti on of the agreement. "Committed assistance" does not include tenant-based rental sistance. (5) For purposes of this subdivision, "net increase" includes only housi g units provided committed assistance pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) ofparagr h (2) in the current planning period, as defined in Section 65588, that were not provo ed committed assistance in the immediately prior planning period (6) Fo purposes of this subdivision, "the time the unit is identified" means the earliest tim when any city or county agent, acting on behalf of a public entity, has proposed in writ" g or has proposed orally or in writing to the property owner, that the unit be cons' ered for substantial rehabilitation, acquisition, or preservation. (7) On July 1 of the t jrd year of the planning period, as defined by Section 65588, in the report required pur ant to Section 65400, each city or county that has included in its housing elemen a program to provide units pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2) all report in writing to the legislative body, and to the department within 30 days fmaking its report to the legislative body, on its progress in providing units pursuant 0 this subdivision. The report shall identify the specific units for which committed assis nce has been provided or which have been made available to low- and very low in me households, and it shall adequately document how each unit complies with this bdivision. If, by July 1 of the third year of the planning period, the city or county as not entered into an enforceable agreement of committed assistance for all units spe fied in the programs adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph ), the city or county shall, not later than July 1 of the fourth year of the planning p JOd, adopt an amended housing element in accordance with Section 65585, identifyi additional adequate sites pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Sectio 5583 sufficient to accommodate the number of units for which committed assist ce was not provided. If a city or county does not amend its housing element to iden fy adequate sites to address any shortfall, or fails to complete the rehabilitation, n ~ ~ ~ acquisition, pu affordability covenants, or the preservation of any housing unit within two years after commItte . e was provided to that unit, it shall be prohibited from identifying units pursuant to su p A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2) in the housing element that it adopts for the ne:\:t planning pen fined in Section 65588, above the number of units actually provided or preserved due to rnmmittp:n assistance. .k \ SEe. 2~~ction 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: ~(:) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum si<:e of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is list~d in the California Register of Historic Places. (C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July], 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the ordinance shall require ministerial approval without discretionary review of applications for second units that meet the requirements of the ordinance application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 6590] or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units. A local agency may charge afee to reimburse itfor costs that it incurs as a result (f amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of second units. (b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within ]20 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 6590] or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a second unit ifthe second unit complies with all ofthe following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (m The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (f)\ The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the 1 iving area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwel1ing and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling.f \J\ t 3~ {0 (E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area offloorspace for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, ifrequired. (2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. @This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision~ shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant. (4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. (d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached second units. No minimum or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. ( e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom Additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use ofthe second unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing dwellings. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topcgmphical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. (f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be determined in accordance with 3" (j) ->-..._..__...._-_.._-,_...._-~_.'.._- .._-~------_.--~.- Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000). (g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units. (h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. (i) As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) "Living area," means the interior habitable area ofa dwel1ing unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 655895. (4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the following: (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. G) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units. $r.L. J. SectIon 65915 6Ithe-GovemmentCo(Jelsarn-ended to read 65915. (a) vvh"H fiR ap icant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a city, county; or city and c ty, that local government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the pr uction of housing units as prescribed in this chapter All cities, counties, or cities and cou . es shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be im ented. (b) A city, county, or city and county shall either grant a density bonus and at Ie one of the concessions or incentives identified in subdivision (j), or provide other incenti or concessions of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling unit, en the applicant for the housing development agrees or proposes to construct at least any on fthe following: (1) Twenty percent of the total units of a housing development for lower' come households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) percent of the total units ofa housing development for very low income households, as med in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) Fifty percent of the total dwel1in units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the 'yil Code. (4) Twenty percent of the total dwel1ing units in a condominium project as define . subdivision (f) of Section 13 51 of the Civil Code, for persons and families of mode e income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The city, county, or' and county shal1 grant the additional concession or incentive required by this subdivi . n unless the city, county, or cilY and county makes a written finding, based upon substantl evidence, that the additional concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable hOU"il~ WSd, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Co , or for rents forthe targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (c) (I) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, continued ()D ~/A @)