The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/11/13 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p,m Wednesday, November 13, 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 25, 2002 and October 9,2002 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 of an industrial complex at 3441 Main Street in the Southwest Redevelopment Area Staff recommends that this public hearing be continued to November 20, 2002. 2, PUBLIC HEARING: Approving the Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Projects Amendment and merger and authorizing submittal of the Preliminary Plan, Staff recommends that this public hearing be continued to November 20, 2002. 3, PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-49; Conditional Use Permit to operate a full- service car wash (which will include a detailing center, convenience store, office and lube facility) in two new buildings on the parcel at the northwest corner of Otay lakes Road and Ridgeback Road, Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner Planning Commission - 2- November 13, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-77; Conditional Use Permit for a 750 sf accessory second unit with an attached 400 sf, two-car garage in a Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone, The accessory unit will be situated behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 682 Ash Avenue. The second unit is in compliance with State government code regulations 65852,2(b)(1)(S)-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-11; Consideration of an amendment to the Eastlake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines to add a contemporary architecture style to the WR-1 land Use District permitted palette of house design, Project Manager: Richard Zumwalt, Associate 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. MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 9,2002 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Absent: Hall, Madrid, Castaneda, Hom O'Neill, Cortes, McCann Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director John Schmitz, Principal Planner Michael Walker, Associate Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-22; Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600 sf satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at 1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. Staff recommends this public hearing be continued to the October 23, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Hall/Hom) (4-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission continue public hearing to October 23, 2002. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-84; Conditional Use Permit requesting four 10-foot diameter satellite dish antennas and a 40-foot antenna tower to the existing Chula Vista Cable facility. Background: Michael Walker, Associate Planner reported that the property is zoned R-3 and currently contains an apartment complex and the Chula Vista Cable facility, Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - October 9,2002 which consists of 10 satellite dishes, a 40 foot antenna tower and a 210 sf equipment storage building. In 1987, the applicant applied on two different occasions for a use permit to add 2 and 4 satellite dishes respectively. Between 1988 and 1991 the four satellite dishes and 40 foot antenna tower were erected without permits, therefore, a violation case was opened on May 2002, which requires the operator and property owner to obtain appropriate permits to correct the violation. Mr. Walker further stated that earlier today, staff received a petition from approximately 60 residents opposing "any and all expansions by the Chula Vista Cable Company". Prior to this, staff did not receive any opposition written or by phone. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Resolution PCC 02-84 based on findings and conditions contained therein. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with simply going through the motions of approving the proposal in order to make it legal, and in some respect, settle for what's there without conditioning the project as if it were a brand new CUP. Cmr. Castaneda further stated that he would like to include a condition(s) that addresses landscaping and its maintenance. Commissioner Hom questioned why after fifteen years in operation, its not until now that the City is requiring that permits be obtained. Furthermore, he asked how far- reaching and what type of noticing was done because when he visited the site, to his surprise, was approached by many concerned residents in the mobile home park adjacent to the facility, and they said they were not aware of the proposal until Mr. Molski, President of the mobilehome park informed them. Mr. Sandoval responded that code enforcement staff is doing an excellent job in covering a tremendous amount of work, with minimal staffing levels. The City's code enforcement program is complaint-driven, which means that it does not become involved until a complaint is filed; one was filed against this site in May of this year. It is anticipated that as more staff is added to the program, it will become a proactive program as opposed to a reactive program. Mr. Sandoval further stated that notices were mail to the surrounding residents within a 300 foot radius from the site. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - October 9, 2002 Public Hearing Opened 6:30. Marty Altbaum, Managing General Partner of Chula Vista Cable, gave a brief history of how Chula Vista Cable got started. He stated the dispute between him and Mr. Molski, who in his opinion is the person who filed the complaint and rallied up the residents to sign a petition in opposition, stems from a hedge shedding leaves on his property. Mr. Altbaum stated that the benefit and service his company provides to the community and by offering his 15,000 subscribers a $10 savings and an alternative to Cox Cable is to be taken into consideration. He has kept up with conversion requirements of undergrounding utilities and laying piping in new development at great cost to his small company, who is competing with a multi-million dollar cable company. Mr. Altbaum further stated that the additional four dishes and tower were installed in order to provide better quality reception to his subscribers and apologized for not going through the proper channels to obtain permits through the City. He stated that he was here to rectify an oversight, but felt that it would be unfair to place expensive conditions, like fencing, on the CUP. Steve Molski, 677 G Street #111, Chula Vista, stated that he did call Mr. Altbaum to inform him of the problem with the hedge, but it was only after he had exhausted every effort through his office by leaving messages that were never responded to. The reason why he would request to have the hedge trimmed is because the leaves and the mud filled the carports and gutters and they had to pay every year to clean them out. Mr. Molski further stated that the aesthetics and hedge problems are secondary to the main concern the area residents have, which is one of public safety. Mr. Molski then played back a recording of a high-pitch shrieking sound coming from his radio. He called SDG&E to have someone come check it out and was told that according to their instrument reading, the interference was caused by emissions coming from the cable facility and that he was going to have to report it to the FCC. Based on public safety concerns, Mr. Molski urged the commission to deny the project. Mr. Altbaum stated that he has always operated within FCC regulations, otherwise he would not be able to operate his business. He denied there being any harmful emissions and stated he has not received anything in writing or by phone from either SDG&E or from the FCC regarding these allegations. Public Hearing Closed 7:05. Commissioner Hom stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Molski at some point had stated he was amenable to having the dish closest to his property moved back 25 to 30 feet, which seems like a reasonable concession that most likely could be Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - October 9,2002 achieved. Furthermore, he is concerned with the alleged findings by the SDG&E engineer and would like more information or verification that a report was filed with the FCC and what the FCC is planning to do about it. After consultation with his engineer, Mr. Altbaum stated that he is agreeable to move back the southeast corner dish. MSC (Castaneda/Hom) (4-0-3-0) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Resolution PCC 02-84 based on findings and conditions contained therein, including the following additional recommendations: · That the dish located on the southeast corner be relocated to an area of sufficient distance away from the adjoining residential property as determined by the Director of Planning and Building; . That the applicant develop a landscaping and maintenance plan consisting of existing and additional landscaping as recommended by the Director of Planning and Building; and . . That verification be obtained indicating that the site is in compliance with all Federal Communication Commission regulations. Motion carried. 3. Public Hearing: PCM 03-05; Consideration and clarification of internal inconsistencies within the adopted Sal Creek Ranch SPA Plan, Design Guidelines and PC District Regulations. Background: Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner reported that the proposal is to develop a 0.87 acre private recreational facility within Neighborhood 8 at the east end of the open space corridor extending from Duncan Ranch Road to North Compass Circle Drive and a 0.85-acre similar facility in Neighborhood 1. The open space corridor is within Neighborhood 8 of Rolling Hills Ranch, which is designated Residential Single Family. Contrary to what is typically seen in land use district maps, the open space corridor is covered by the residential land use designation, therefore, all uses listed in this designation applies to the open space. Staff concluded that the open space lot in Neighborhood 8 did not receive an appropriate land use designation. Additionally, the SPA Plan identifies the open space corridor as a visual and passive open space corridor. Due to the more active component of the private recreational facility, in order to construct a swim complex, Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - October 9, 2002 which the applicant is proposing, staff recommends that the applicant submit and obtain approval for a SPA amendment requesting a land use designation change from SF-1 to OS-2. Staff concurs with the applicants desire to construct a recreational facility and endorses its architectural design, amenities and overall landscaping concept plan. However, it is important to adhere to adopted regulatory documents and overall urban design concept prescribed in the Vision Plans and for this reason recommends that the Planning Commission select one of the following actions: 1. The subject site is designated SF-1, which allows the recreation facilities subject to Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission approval. Thus, the Planning Commission finds the project in substantial conformance with the SPA Plan urban design intent and hereby approves the proposed recreational facility land use, including grading subject to design related conditions; or 2. The SPA Plan intent is to preserve the views and passive open space amenities envisioned in the adopted SPA and therefore concurs with staff that the existing open space corridor should be considered as an OS-1 and therefore the proposed land uselproject is allowed only with approval of a SPA amendment to change the land use designation from SF-1 to OS-2. Dave Gatzke, McMillin Company, representing McMillins Rolling Hills Ranch stated their two objectives are to develop these high quality amenities as soon as possible and to continue the high level of design and amenities that the prior developer (Pacific Bay Homes) had initiated at Rolling Hills Ranch. Mr. Gatzke stated that in his opinion, the ambiguity was created as a result of incidental language that was included in the SPA Plan that wasn't intended to exist. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission finding be that the underlying land use district for both sites is SF and requests that staff be directed to finalize its administrative review of the two facilities. Furthermore, if the finding is that the areas are an OS zone, that the designation be OS2, which allows the active recreational use. Commissioner Madrid inquired from a legal standpoint what would be the best approach to make these clarifications without setting precedence that might later be regretted. Ann Moore, Sr. Assistant City Attorney responded that both alternatives are legal. From a legal standpoint the safest alternative would be #2 (the SPA amendment), which is the clearest, most conservative route. Conversely, alternative #1 is appropriate ifthe finding is made that it is not in conflict with the SPA Plan. Furthermore, whichever alternative is adopted, it would set a record that this is what is meant in this particular Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - October 9, 2002 SPA for this project. MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (4-0-3) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of alternative #1, which reads: The subject site is designated sF-1, which allows the recreation facilities subject to Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission approval. Thus, the Planning Commission finds the project in substantial conformance with the SPA Plan urban design intent and hereby approves the proposed recreational facility land use, including grading subject to design related conditions. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-41; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow for either a 50-ft. mono-pine or a 35-ft. mono-palm antenna structure with equipment enclosure at 1008 Industrial Boulevard. Background: Mr. Phelps stated that Sprint PCS is proposing to install, operate and maintain an unmanned cellular facility within the existing parking lot of the Toys R Us property. The facility would consist of either a 50 ft. monopine or a 35 ft. monopalm and a 450 sf equipment building, which would cover an area where reception is weak. The aesthetic treatment includes two 30 ft. real pine trees surrounding a mono-pine tree or two 20 ft. real palm tree surrounding a mono-palm. There will also be new shrubbery to screen the equipment shelter. Staff Recommendation: Thatthe Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC02-41 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for either a 50 ft mono-pine or a 35 ft. mono-palm antenna structure with equipment enclosure. Public Hearing Opened 7:45. Grant Heitman, 9275 Skypark Ct., San Diego, the applicant's representative, reviewed a map identifying the "coverage hole" their facility will cover, and he also reviewed photo sims depicting the design of their latest state-of-the-art mono-pine I mono-palm. Mr. Heitman stated that there may not be other carriers coming to this location and Sprint may be the last one, therefore, while he personally prefers the aesthetics of the mono-palm, the mono-pine gives you the option of co-locating other carriers, however it is a more massive structure. Public Hearing closed 7:55. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - October 9, 2002 MsC (HaIIlHom) (4-0-3) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 02- 41 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 35 ft. mono-palm antenna structure with equipment enclosure at 1008 Industrial Boulevard. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 8: 15 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2002. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 25, 2002 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Hall, Commissioners Castaneda, Cortes, O'Neill, Madrid, Hom McCann Absent: Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager Patricia Beard, Sr. Community Development Specialist Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEISILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Hall APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) to approve minutes of August 14, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-05; Proposed private recreational facility within Neighborhood 8: requesting interpretation of inconsistencies between the adopted Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan and PC District Regulations. Staff recommends that this item be continued to the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (4-0-2) to continue public hearing to October 9, 2002. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 25, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-84; Conditional Use Permit requesting four 10- foot diameter satellite dish antennas and a 40-foot antenna tower to the existing Chula Vista Cable facility. Staff recommends that this item be continued to the October 9, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-22; Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600 sf satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at 1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that the proposal is for a Precise Plan and an appeal to the Planned Sign Program for the addition of a new 6,600 sf satellite retail building to be located within and as part of a modernization of the existing shopping center, which includes the Target department store. On August 19, 2002 the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan. In addition, the DRC approved a Planned Sign Program that would require a single pylon sign in lieu of an existing free-standing pole sign. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the reduction from the required 15 ft. landscape buffer to 10ft. along Broadway and Oxford Street and recommended approval to reduce the parking space requirements in order to allow the outdoor patio seating for the proposed Starbucks Cafe. The revised elevations address the Design Review Committee's concerns with respect to having the new satellite building complimenting the existing in-line building. The applicant is also requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Design Review Committee's decision on the Planned Sign Program in order to retain the existing 50 ft. free-standing pole sign on Broadway as well as the 30 ft. double pole sign on Oxford Street. The Planned Sign Program will allow the existing Big Lots and Payless Shoe Source sign board to be retained. Staff recommends that the DRC's decision be upheld for the following reasons: . The proposed pylon sign would be similar to the one that will be installed at Target, which will replace the existing three-sided pole sign. This would enable the landlord to include additional tenants of the shopping center. . There have been numerous sign code violations and signage installed without permits. . The Precise Plan request provides the most appropriate time to implement the Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 25, 2002 Planned Sign Program as the value of the requested addition and improvements are much greater than the cost of removing or replacing the existing pole signs. The 70 ft. three-sided Target sign will be replaced by two 35 ft. pylon signboards before the end of the year, making the 50 ft. high "lollypop" sign the tallest pole sign within the vicinity of the south Broadway corridor. Non-conforming pole signs are being removed on a regular basis as part of a City policy to rely more heavily on the Design Manual guidelines. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission uphold the Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision being appealed by the applicant with regards to the Planned Sign Program, and approve Resolution PCM 02-22 that recommends the City Council approve the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the City Council Resolution. Public Hearing Opened 6:30. Dan Malcolm, 1206 Seacoast Drive, Imperial Beach, applicant's representative, stated that initially the project started out as the development of a 6,600 sf building, which later turned into a redevelopment of the entire shopping center, increasing substantially the cost of the project. Mr. Malcolm explained that the problem with the sign program is that the property owner has a contractual lease obligations to the two tenants, which prohibit the landlord from modifying the signage in any way; to do so would be to open himself to litigation. Therefore, the Design Review Committee has placed a condition on this project that the applicant cannot legally comply with. Mr. Malcolm suggested that perhaps a way to accomplish this might be to have the City require the tenants to remove the non-conforming signs. Mr. Malcolm urged the Commission to reach a compromise on the sign issue taking into account the overall benefit that will be derived to the entire shopping center with the enhancements that are proposed. He further stated that if a compromise on the signage issue cannot be reached, then the project will not move forward because the applicanUlahdlord will not subject himself to a law suit. Commissioner O'Neill asked how many years are left on the Pic N Save lease. Mr. Malcolm responded that they have three more years left with two five-year options. Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney clarified that at this time the signs are legal non- conforming, therefore, they only become an issue when you add to the site, at which time it is required that the site be brought up to code, however, without the project, Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September 25, 2002 the signs remain legal non-conforming. John Ziebarth, 800 W. Ivy Street, San Diego, CA, architect gave a brief overview of the project's design. Public Hearing Closed 6:55. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Castaneda reminded the Commission that in a recent workshop staff presented the Broadway revitalization program, which at its crux involves the removal of the legal non-conforming signs along this commercial corridor. He further stated that the issue he struggles with is how to achieve one of the core strategies of the revitalization program and at the same time balance it with being able to be flexible enough to work with an applicant such as this who is proposing substantial improvements and redevelopment to a commercial center. Cmr. Castaneda proposed that the project be condition to require the removal of the "Everything $5" sign and to sunset the Pic N Save lollypop sign to go concurrently with the life of the existing lease, which expires in approximately 3 years. Commissioner Cortes stated that as a resident of the southwest area he is committed to keeping at the forefront the revitalization of this area and believes that the enhancements that the applicant is proposing, along with the establishment of a Starbucks will create synergy, which is vital to the success of any commercial center, therefore, he is supportive of a compromise as it relates to the signage issue surrounding this project. Commissioner O'Neill stressed the need to stay focused on the vision planned for the revitalization along Broadway. He expressed concern with the precedence that would be set for this project, however, recognizing the overall benefit of redeveloping the center, he reluctantly would support conditioning the project to include a sunset clause stating that at the end of the present lease (approximately 3 years) the Broadway pole sign will be removed and brought into compliance. MSC (Castaneda/Cortes) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission continue this item to October 9th directing staff to revise the sign requirements to specify the removal of the Oxford pole sign now, and allow the Broadway pole sign to remain for a period not to exceed three years. Motion carried with Commission Hom abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes 5 - September 25, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-04; Amendment to Chapters 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, PC Planned Community Zone of Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that the Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) is unique to the Planned Community District and is intended to provide sites for public facilities such as churches, day-care and other similar uses. Currently the ordinance requires developers to provide 1.39 acres of Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) land per thousand populations. The CPF facilities and requirements are not related to park requirements, which are a totally separate requirement. Additionally, no land use receiving CPF credit will be eligible for park credit, and vice versa. The first component of the amendment concerns the definition of a CPF. CPF is a land use designation, which allows for non-profit and certain for-profit uses considered to be of community-wide benefit. Currently the definition lists both all of the typical uses, which can qualify into these provisions, as well as referencing another section, which also delineates in more detail all of the possible uses which could be considered. Staff is recommending that the definition be shortened by eliminating the list of typical uses within the definition section and only referencing them in another section. The second component of the amendment provides provision for allowing interim uses when a CPF use is not presently available for a site. The Code provides that after a minimum of five years of non-use of a CPF site, the developer may file a request for a conditional interim use. Staff is recommending reducing the waiting period from five years to three. In addition, a new finding is being recommended which requires that if a structure is designed as a permanent building, the building design is to be planned as a conceptual component of a permanent permitted CPF use. The third component involves a recommended expansion of the allowance for recreational uses to include certain facilities by a HOA. Staff concludes that such facilities as common usable open space could qualify for CPF credit subject to recommended findings regarding minimum parcel size, which contains minimal recreational amen ities. Recreational uses are Ii m ited to 35 % of the overall CPF acreage provided and can only be allowed after a CPF master plan has been prepared. Staff believes that the City can accommodate the amount of regular CPF uses on 65% of the required CPF acreage and that the remaining 35% can be used for a number of different types of recreational uses including HOA provided facilities such common usable open space areas. As one of the major uses currently allowed under the recreational use provision is for ball fields. Staff notified the local Little League regarding this amendment and invited them to attend this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - September 25, 2002 The adopted ordinances and proposed amendments allow master developers to work with non-profit organizations such as Little League, day-care providers and other community groups to provide amenities and services which have been deemed appropriate for the community. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend that Council adopt the amendments to the Municipal Code Chapters 19.04 Definitions and Chapter 19.48 P- C Community Zone. Commissioner O'Neill asked if an interim use is allowed, how or who decides when its time to transition from an interim use to a CPF use. Mr. Steichen responded that interim uses have to be granted by the City Council and is typically for a period of five years. There's also a provision which states that if an imminent CPF proposal is submitted, its at the discretion of the City Council to give a one year timeframe notice to the interim use that it will need to be discontinued. Public Hearing Opened 9:10. Charlie Martinez, 360 Oxford Street, Apt #4., Chula Vista, stated he is the Little League Baseball District #42 Administrator, which encompasses the area south of Highway 54. He stated that four years ago he proposed to start a new little league in Eastlake. He address his request to The Eastake Company stating that as new development comes into the City, they are bringing in more kids who have no place to play because the league cannot support any more participants and there are no more fields available to play in. He further stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission commissioned a fact-finding study, which indicated that the community's foremost desire is to have more sports fields. Mr. Martinez expressed concern that consideration of other uses, as proposed in the amendment, could potentially reduce the opportunity for ball fields to be made available. Public Hearing closed 9:30 Jim Sandoval reminded the Commission that about a year ago, the CPF Ordinance was amended to allow Little League fields to be built and for the developers to be able to receive CPF credit for those fields and that isn't changing with this proposed amendment. Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner stated that this ordinance amendment was crafted to supplement the previously adopted Little League ball field portion of the CPF ordinance. The Eastlake Company has since built a Little League facility in Eastlake Trails, which has been very successful. Subsequently, the Eastlake Company also requested that the Plann ing Comm ission and City Counci I increase the percentage of the CPF acreage from 25 to 35 acres, which resulted in one additional 4 acre site in Eastlake III and is now Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - September 25, 2002 pending construction. Under the proposed amendment, there are two sites that are targeted for CPF credit; one is the small half-acre site., which in order to qualify for CPF credit must have the following: . One multi-purpose hard court (basketball, etc.) . Children's play area . Community gather facility . Outdoor cooking facility, and . Lawn area In addition to all of the above stated requirements for the small site, the larger l-acre sites are required to add one of the following items: . A tennis court . A swimming pool, or . A full size court field (soccer or baseball field).] Mr. Hernandez further stated that the latter requirement is at the determination of the Zoning Administrator. He, therefore, suggested that Mr. Martinez work hand-in-hand with the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission to lobby against any project that does not address the desires of the community to provide sports facilities. Commissioner Hall asked what would be the means by which Mr. Martinez could obtain the information which identifies land that can sustain sports facilities. Mr. Hernandez suggested that Mr. Martinez get in touch with the master developers. Secondly, Planning staff can assist him in identifying all of the CPF sites that are available and, thirdly, City staff can place him on a list to be notified whenever a developer submits a request for a Conditional Use Permit to have a CPF site converted for credit. Commissioner Hall stated he is passionate about this subject and firmly believes that it is long overdue for the developers, City staff, and community leaders such as Mr. Martinez, to sit together and discuss in layman's terms what the developers need, and what overwhelming desire of the community is with respect to having more sports facilities. MSC (O'Neill/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.04 Definitions, and Chapter 19.48 P-C Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Motion carried. 5. Public Hearing: PCC 02-32; Conditional Use Permit to add a Citgo gasoline service station in front of an existing Seven/Eleven convenience store at 4300 Main Street, SW corner of Melrose Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - September 25, 2002 Commissioner Madrid stepped down from the dais. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner, reported that the Seven-Eleven Corporation is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add a gasoline service station to an existing 7-11 convenience store. Although Main St. is know for the many industrial uses, there is a mixture of multi-family residential and commercial land uses surrounding the proposed site with a condominium complex to the south and west, and apartments to the north. The proposed parcel for the service station will be partially improved and is adjacent to a natural draining course. The appl icant proposes to construct a 26 x 78-ft. canopy covering three gas dispenser. The existing Seven-Eleven monument sign will be removed and replaced by a single monument sign that incorporates the 7-11 and Citgo logo. There will be 18 parking spaces and additional landscaping and a block wall will run along the length of the service station adjacent to the condominium development to the south. The site is currently divided by chain-link fencing and buganvilla. At the Design Review Committee meeting concerns were raised by neighbors about the proximity of the service station to the adjacent condominiums. As a result, the DRC recommended that the decorative concrete masonry block wall be extended west beyond the proposed service station area to the top of the west-facing slope along the south property line on the undeveloped portion of the property. Since this issue was not brought up until the public hearing, the DRC made their recommendation without detailed information about the slope on the site. Staff believes that an alternative in order to provide adequate screening for the condominiums would be to install a 6 ft. high chain-link fence with landscaping or a solid wood fence along the top of the slope. This would eliminate the need to require additional grading beyond the service station proposal. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution DRC 02-35 and PCC 02-32 approving the findings and conditions of the Design Review Committee and subject to conditions and findings contained in the Planning Commission Resolution. Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the I itter trap that the space between the two fences would create. If, in fact, the slope belongs to the upper property, conditions can be added requiring its maintenance and response to any concerns of the HOA may have. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - September 25, 2002 Public Hearing Opened 7:25. Richard Arden, 1720 Melrose #33, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because it will devalue the surrounding properties. He urged the commission to deny the project. Steven Rettke, 1720 Melrose #10, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because there already is a saturation of gas stations along Main Street. In addition, the 7-11 store is not a good neighbor because they allow groups of people to congregate late at night who are simply loitering and drinking, creating an unsafe environment for patrons. He urged the commission to deny the project. James & Teri Van Den Brock, 1720 Melrose #32, Chula Vista, stated they oppose the project because property values will decrease due to the extra traffic congestion created by the gas station, potential health and environmental hazards, and because there already is an over-saturation of gas stations in close proximity to this area. They urged the commission to deny the project. Aura Quecan, 1720 Melrose #5, Chula Vista, stated she opposes the project because of concern with potential leaking from the underground fuel storage tanks, environmental pollution from gas and diesel emissions, and the devaluation of property value. She urged the commission to deny the project. Bill Rigsby, 1720 Melrose #45, Chula Vista, stated he opposes the project because of noise impacts the project will create with vehicles pumping fuel at all hours of the day and night. He is also concerned with the littering behind the fence and graffiti that the fence will attract. He urged the commission to deny the project. John Schmitz, Principal Planner, clarified that the project does not include diesel fuel dispensing. Homero Eufracio, 1720 Melrose #7, Chula Vista stated he opposes the project because it can potentially attract and increase the level of crime (theft) the neighborhood is already experiencing. The neighborhood has a lot of children and he would be concerned with their safety. He urged the commission to deny the project. Christine Alonso, 1720 Melrose #14, Chula Vista stated that as a former president and member of the board, she is very much aware of the problem created by the lack of maintenance of the area surrounding the convenience store and on several occasion had to call the City to request enforcement of its maintenance. She also stated that as one of the original owners, they were told that at some point in the future there would be a strip mall developed on that vacant property. She is concerned with the added traffic congestion and vagrancy. She urged the commission to deny the project. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - September 25, 2002 Cmr. Castaneda asked if the association ever made an attempt to contact the store management to file a formal complaint. Ms. Alonso stated that they have corresponded with them and pointed to an incident where there was a chemical seeping from the 7-11 wall that abuts the complex carport and it took them over a year to have them take care of it. Additionally there was a hole in the fence, which they did not repair and since the restroom inside the store is off-limits to the public, they would come out through the back and then go through the fence to relieve themselves. The complex had to, as a last resort, repair the fence. Maria Bailon, 273-D Rancho Ct, Chula Vista stated she opposes the project because she is concerned with vandalism and also in case of an emergency (explosion), egress from the area she lives would be cut off. Ann Skains, 1720 Melrose #16, Chula Vista stated that as a former employee of a convenience store, she was told by her employer that it is considered to be a dangerous place to be when there is a convenience store and gas station in close proximity to a freeway, which is the case for this project. She is also concerned with the safety of children because this creates a perfect setting for kidnapping. Paul Masca, 1702 E. McNair, representing the applicant clarified that there wi II be no diesel dispensing atthis facility and stated that the facility will be in full compliance with the California Air Resource Board requirements, which include double-walled containment tanks and piping. He further stated that his client is receptive to conditioning the project to include landscaping along the fence i.e. bouganvilias to deter graffiti. He emphasized the 7-11 has a corporate-based crime prevention program implementing such measures as security cameras, and there will be additional lighting within the canopy. He also clarified that this is an independent franchise, not a corporate facility. There is also a "1-800" number posted on the front door that anyone can call with concerns and a representative from the maintenance department will respond to the calls. Helen Chism, Field Consultant for 7-11 stated they advise their franchisees that their store policy is that there is to be no congregation of people outside their stores and they are to call the police whenever this occurs. Commissioner Hall asked it they have considered hiring a security guard. Ms. Chism responded that they prefer not to because the presence of a guard gives a negative image and people are less likely to patronize their store. Commissioner Hom inquired what was the response time from when someone calls the "1-800" number. Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - September 25, 2002 Ms. Chism stated that an outside company monitors that number and whenever a call comes in they will contact a field Consultant, such as herself, within an hour of the call coming in; in her case, she will get the call on her cell phone. Cmr. Hom inquired if there are any studies that support the premise that by adding a gas station it will increase the customer base. Judy Sober, Manager of the Gasoline Department for 7-11 stated that they are in the gasoline business to make a profit and studies show that their merchandize sales do not go up simply because there is a gas station. They are there to service their clientele-base; they can buy their Slurpee or coffee without having to go across the street to pump their gas. Public Hearing Closed 8:20. Commissioner Cortes stated that it is inconceivable to him to believe that these neighbors who are in such an uproar with complaint after complaint against the store, and yet the corporation seems to be unaware that any problems were occurring, giving testimony that there are checks and balances and pol icies in place to address any type of concerns from the patrons. Ms. Chism reiterated that the system that's in place is designed to avoid having to go through layer upon layer to ultimately reach resolve or response to a concern. She indicated it appears the complaints have been improperly channeled and instead have been going to the sales associate or the franchizee. Commissioner Cortes asked if the applicant had any type of outreach program such as going to a homeowners board meeting or canvassing the neighborhood asking for their input on concerns and for their support. It seems obvious to him that making a good- faith effort to be a good neighbor would go a long way. The Commission collectively felt that in addition to the concern with having a gasoline station abutting a high density residential location, there are too many complaints from the surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the applicant's lack of sensitivity to their neighbors, who demographically ought to be their best clients, weighs heavily on their decision. MSC (O'Neill/Hail) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission deny PCC 02-32, a Condtional Use Permit to add a Citgo gasoline service station in front of an existing Seven/Eleven convenience store at 4300 Main Street. Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Hall) (5-0-1-1) that staff be directed to bring back a resolution of Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - September 25, 2002 denial for PCC 02-32. Motion carried. 6. ACTION ITEM: PCM 03-09; Determination of development standards for Eastlake III relating to exterior sideyard setbacks and allowable stories within a single family residence. Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that Section 11.3.3.2 states that a 10' setback is typically required between the residence and the exterior side yard property line. Under normal circumstances, the property line is also the ROW, however, in some instances there is an open space lot separating the residential lot from the street. In these cases the Zoning Administrator recommends that if an open space lot with a minimum width of 10' separates the residential lot from the street ROW, the setback could be reduced to 5'. Section 11.3.3.2 states that the maximum allowable height is 28', however, a total of only 2 stories are permitted within certain land use district, while in other districts, up to 2.5 stories are permitted: The Zoning Administrator reviewed Chapter 19 and other PC District Regulation and found them to consistently allow for 2.5 stories with a height restriction of 28'. The SPA document contains no language to clarify why there is ambiguity regarding the allowable number of stories, therefore, due to the lack of clarity as well as staff's analysis, the Zoning Administrator believed that allowing only 2 stories is a clerical error. Furthermore, staff recommends that if the Planning Commission concurs that the omission of.5 story is an oversight, Eastlake Should be required to amend the PC District Regulations accordingly. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution regarding the interpretation of development standards for exterior side yard setbacks and allowable number of stories within a single-family residence in accordance with the findings contained therein. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Madrid expressed concern that the height issue could be open to interpretation depending on how one manipulates measuring the pitch of the roof. Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner clarified that the issue is not the actual height, but rather the interpretation of what a 2 and 2.5 story residence. Most of the residential neighborhoods allow 2.5 stories, but for some reason two of the neighborhoods in Eastlake III were left out of the 2.5 stories. Staff believes that this option will not increase the bulk of the building primarily because their will still be limited to the 28' height and the FAR. This is not something that is being added, but rather its an interpretation that Planning Commission Minutes - 13 - September 25, 2002 these two neighborhoods should be brought to par with the rest of the neighborhoods in Eastlake and other master planned communities. MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt resolution regarding the interpretation of development standards for exterior side yard setbacks and allowable number of stories within a single-family residence in accordance with the findings contained therein. 7. REPORT: Report on the Feasibility Study for the redevelopment of Energy Way in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area, as part of an Agency initiative on open storage uses in redevelopment project areas Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager stated that staff's is seeking the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency that they accept the report and provide staff direction to proceed with the presented action planning strategy, including bringing back for Council consideration of an Open Storage ordinance. MSC (Cortes/O'Neill) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommends that the Redevelopment Agency accept the report and provide staff direction to proceed with the presented action planning strategy, including bringing back for Council consideration of an Open Storage ordinance. Motion carried. Business: Commissioner O'Neill was nominated to be the representative to the General Plan Steering Committee. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2002. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission ~_......--._._--_..,..._._._._---,,_. '---"'---'-~'---"'----""'--'"'----'- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: -3 ~ Meeting Date: 11/13/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-02-49, Conditional Use Permit to operate a full- service car wash (which will include a detailing center, convenience store, office and lube facility) in two new buildings on the parcel at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. Applicant: Lou Brito The proposed project is a request for a conditional use permit to establish full service car wash (which will include a detailing center, convenience store, 'otIice and lube facility) in two new buildings on the parcel at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city staff conducted an Initial Study (IS-02-32) of possible environmental impacts associated with this project, and the city's environmental review coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by city staff and will be considered by the Planning Commission, prior to consideration of the project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On July 1,2002, the Design Review Committee approved the site plan and architecture for the project (DRC-02-40). On October 14, 2002 the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-02-49 (Attachment 2) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 3) that has been prepared for this project (18-02-32), and approving the conditional use permit to operate a car wash (which will include a detailing center, convenience store, office and lube facility) in two new buildings. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The .57-acre project site is a vacant, triangular-shaped lot at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road in eastern Chula Vista. The property is designated CR - Commercial Retail on the City's General Plan, and is zoned CCP - Central Commercial, with a Precise Plan overlay. / '.~"---'-'_._----'-"------'--~'--'--'---' Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/02 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use General Plan Zoning Current Land Use North Northwest Southwest Southeast East West Open Space Commercial-Retail Commercial-Retail Commercial-Retail Public, Quasi-Public Commercial-Retail PC CCP CCP CCP RI CCP Long Canyon North Island Federal Bonita Hills Apartments Blockbuster Video Bonita Vista High School Professional Offices 3. Proposal The project consists of establishing a full-service car wash (which will include a detail center, convenience store, office and lube facility) in two new buildings, including: a) a 3,74S-square- foot, one-story building that will house the car wash, convenience store, office, and 2-bay lube facility; and b) a 973-square-foot detailing structure that will have four bays. The vacuum station will not be in an enclosed structure. Improvements will include a 17-space paved parking lot and interior and perimeter landscaping, including maintenance of an equestrian trail along the Otay Lakes Road side of the parcel. The car wash will operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. In the winter months, it will close one hour earlier. 4. Analysis The proposed car wash will be a 100% hand car wash, and there are currently no car washes of this kind in Chula Vista east ofl-80S. The location ofthe proposed car wash is along a heavily traveled road (Otay Lakes Road) and near densely populated residential communities, which would make it conveniently accessible to many people in Chula Vista. Because the access road to the project is widely used, cumulative traffic impacts that would result from the project were carefully scrutinized in a traffic study conducted for the Initial Study. Under 2012 conditions, the traffic study concluded that the project would result in significant cumulative traffic impacts unless mitigated to a level of less than significant. Thus, a mitigation measure will require the applicant to contribute to the Transportation Development Impact Fee to lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the proposal to a level ofless than significant. Additionally, the City's Engineering Department is requiring a dedication of right-of-way 64 feet from centerline, for a future 6-land Prime Arterial (as noted on the site plan). The traffic study included off-site impacts and on-site circulation for fire and delivery trucks. The proposed site plan was determined to be adequate, ;). Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/02 Conditional use permits are required in the Central Commercial Zone for car wash facilities, subject to the following provisions ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 19.58.060: . All equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise emanating there from, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be no more audible than the noise emanating from the normal street traffic at a comparable distance. A noise study was preparedfor the proposed project, and the mitigated negative declaration (IS-02-32) concludes that no significant noise levels are projected to be generated by the proposed project. . Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., unless specifically approved by the planning commission. Hours of operation are proposedjTom 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. which is in compliance with the hours allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. . Vacuwning facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles entering the car wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas used for ingress or egress. The vacuuming facilities will be located at the rear of the property so that there will be ample room for vehicles to wait without creating congestion. . The car wash location, technology and related drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure from water from the car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to collect and retain potentially toxic material, and to use recycled water to the extent possible. The mitigated negative declaration (IS-02-32) addresses these issues. The proposed project was also required to go before the Design Review Committee for site plan and architectural approval. The Design Review Committee approved the project on July 1,2002. In response to concerns expressed by tenants of the adjacent office building, the final design included architectural moditications to the detailing building, making it shorter, with wrought iron enhancements, and a roof over the trash enclosure portion. Also, in response to the Bonita Valley Trails organization, the landscape plan was modified to ensure maintenance of an existing equestrian trail. 3 Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/02 5. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-49, to allow establishment of the proposed full-service car wash (which will include a detail center, convenience center, office and lube facility). Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-49 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration if ..--." PROJECT lOCATION "''- ,^^ \ \ '., \i \ ~V/ R ---(~ ~ /-\ \ ,0~' \.~ \-/) ;. '\ v___ '- """"'--1 \ / / I \. __ "," f . / RISEN SAVIOR\(/ j(' \<....(~// \~~, ~g. EVANGELICAL \ \v;;. \ ; "'!a ~ /- ~U~~~ \ \ \~\ / .sl-S;~ J" "~~/' i W i -~r- /- , ~)Y~_ f () ~ r<^'-" ~ -%; / ;:/ \ /l r=rD \ \/ ~-_/'r; r V d \\~~bB~6~::;.:\ ~ ~;~ , /' / IZ~:. \~>>// I ~..... \ i ------ \ ~ . I I / ! I "'-.., " '..... '''-. .... . "\ >~~~~ -Vi ;, (-<0;~~/~~\ \ ; ~ Sf?, ", 'J, ')... ~"1D'" \ ',,< ~ / '.......... ''....< ~" .......\ ~ /.......'-.., '.......... \ 'v/> .J.. .<'. '.... BONITA POINT\. /' '"..,,~ ...... \ PlAZA /'< i"': \ /\~. "/// \ // .~ //~ ~~--- \/// )-/>/ /~~.. - /- .._" /"~ BONITA VISTA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BONITA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL BONITA HILLS APARTMENTS RDR SPA 1 PHASE 2 DISCOVERY [COMMUNITY] PARK C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: LOU BRITO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT ADDRESS: QJmer of CJtay Lakes and Ridgeback Road Request: Proposal for a full service car wash, convenience store and offices. (2) bay lube SCALE: FILE NUMBER: S facilities and a (4) bay car detailing building. NORTH No Scale PCC-02-49 Related Cases: DRC-02-40. 15-02-032 j :Ihomelplan ninglcherrylcllocatDrslpcc0249. cdr 06.26.02 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-49 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC- 02-49 FOR A CAR WASH ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND RIDGEBACK ROAD. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, consists of approximately .57 acres at the northwest comer ofOtay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road; and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval . WHEREAS, on February 14,2002, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-02-49) was filed by Lou Brito ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested permission to establish a full-service car wash (which will include a detailing center, convenience store, office and lube facility) in two new buildings; and C. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project required the preparation of an Initial Study. Such study was prepared by the City ofChula Vista, and based on such study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review; and, D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning Commission on November 13, 2002 to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find, .\"t'.'mline and resolve as follows: o II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Planning Commission does hereby fmd that the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. III. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission fmds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this Project reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility, which will contribute, to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. , The proposed car wash will be a 100% hand car wash, and there are currently no car washes of this kind in Chula Vista east of 1-805. The location of the proposed car wash is along a heavily traveled road and near densely populated residential communities, making it conveniently accessible to many people in Chula Vista. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed car wash will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed landscaping and the architecture of the buildings, which have been approved by the Design Review Committee, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in tenns of design, building materials and colors. In addition, the buildings will be constructed in confonnance with the Unifonn Building Code. A Mitigation Monitoring Program will address any potential transportation/circulation; water/drainage; air quality; and geophysical impacts pre- construction, during construction, and post construction. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. 2. 7 The conditional approval of PCC-02-49 requires 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. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the . Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 19.58.060, Automobile Car Wash Facilities, as specified below: . All equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise emanating there from, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be no more audible than the noise emanating from the normal street traffic at a comparable distance. . Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to II :00 p.m., unless specifically approved by the planning commission. . Vacuuming facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles entering the car wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas used for ingress or egress. . The car wash location, technology and related drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure from water from the car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to collect and retain potentially toxic material, and to use recycled water to the extent possible. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Approval of this Project, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance with City policies and the General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW: V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Plarming Commission hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-49, subject to the following conditions: 1. Project shall comply with all conditions of approval for DRC-02-40. 2. Project shall comply with all mitigation measures stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS-02-32). 3 z 3. Development of the project shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulationS adopted by the City ofChula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice oflntent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. The developer shall comply with all the provisions of the NPDES and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The applicant shall design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board bas issued a new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01). The permit includes regulations such as implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS) and Numeric Sizing Criteria for new residential development. The applicant shall comply with all relevant City regulations, when they become effective, including but not limited to incorporation into the design and implementation of the Project temporary and permanent structural Best Management Practices and non-structural mitigation measures that would reduce pollution of storm runoff to the maximwn extent practicable. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program. The quantity of runoff from the development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than present I DO-year frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities will be required as approved by the Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than predevelopment flows. Said retention/detention facilities shall be provided by the Applicant. 5. 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, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 6. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from 4 q and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this conditional use pennit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any otherpennit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) applicant's installation and operation of the facility pennitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this conditional use pennit where indicated, above. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use pennit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. VI. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT 1. This Conditional Use Pennit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 2. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property. 3. Any violations of the tenns and conditions of this permit shall be ground for revocation or modification of permit. VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The Planning Commission directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file same with the City Clerk. VIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event the applicant or its assigns or successors in interest challenge anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions, and are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 13th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 5 10 Russ Hall, Chair Diana Vargas, Secretary 6 1/ ---------- ~"0 \..c!, ......-.>--, A... ) ~.. ~ /:'^ 8............:----\ / ~y "'..,"'<:~ ------' . .........j ,.~ -~.~ ~ - \ .~ //', ,.... \/ ')?J). ~ ---"-" \ RISEN SAVIOR \ ".(' ~ft-...-:---.~/ ~"J' !jj-../~ '/'C" , '\EVANGELlCAL '\" / / \ ..., "" ~ \ y~ \ '.L..i \ LUTHERAN v/ \.- '\^~' \' V ~\ I CHURCH \ \ '\/ \\~/ I ~~ \\ \ \\ // ~~....~, \_~~~\Y \-----~ \ ~ '-. /:: n--D\> ~\JH PROJECT~ \/ ~r--~V\ \ ~ \....~Q~~ LOCATION ~ '\----;g>-J Cy/~~ \ \ '/.......... \ ~ i A{ / ~r---",' ,/ \ BONITA VISTA /: ~Ii \; ...............-. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL \ ,0:"""-------- ~ \ NO~~~EI:ND I ~ CREDrT UNION", .... ../' ~& ~/ -...." _____../! (('\\~ \YA~ /""'" ""'/"-" ~ : TIARA 1:-~5' / ~"y?~ ~/ -'. . ~ CONDOMINIUMS '{I' ~:.;, !JJ, ~CK \S..~ "" ....0.'''..... . \~8..:~/ f/;-",' Ql)\ \..-?1r iq'~ /""""\ ~YJ rtT, "0"',' '-. BONITA HillS '.. /~-ff'S;::::' ~ 0/ /. \~~\ APARTMENTS --." '.... .~O '.... 7 <~ ^' ~ \ " ,~/~ ~ \ ~~ OIill@DlW\ ...............---\, ~-'.., Z)/'.... \ SDG&E (\C!lh, f''-''\'\ mtl\ \............... \.',.... \ ''...., EASEMENT \ ~mm \ 'JSl1' ~ '\ \ \/ '., ,~ , \ \ . BONITA POINT \ ~" ) I 'PLAZA')1 ,/V \ s~~~ ~ / \ PHASE 2 ._-.----- ...... /"""'. -, \ BONITA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL \ .. '..-.....-. / CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ APPLICANT: LOU BRITO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT ADDRESS: O:>mer of Gay lakes and Ridgeback Road Request: Proposal for a full service car wash, convenience store and offices. (2) bay lube SCALE: FILE NUMBER: :t facilities and a (4) bay car detailing building. NORTH No Scale PCC-02-49 / Related Cases: DRC-02-40, 1$-02-032 j :\homelpla n n inglcherrylcllocatorslpcc0249. cd r 06.26.02 EXHffiIT A Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Aqua Clean Carwash/Lube Center PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Lakes RoadlRidgeback Road ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 594-120-2400 PROJECT APPLICANT: Lou Brito CASE NO.: IS-02-32 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: October 02, 2002 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: October 14, 2002 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Proiect Setting The 0.57-acre, unoccupied project site is located at the northwest comer of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road (refer to Exhibit A). The triangular-shaped, relatively flat site has been previously disturbed with pre-grading but never developed. The majority of the property consists of bare dirt with some non-native vegetation. Surrounding land uses consist of the following: North - East- South - Southwest - West- Fitness Club Otay Lakes Road Commercial Shopping Center Apartments Professional Office Building B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a full-service car wash facility with small convenience store; 2-bay lube facility and car detailing shade structure (Exhibit B). The proposal includes a vacuum station near the northern property boundary, a car wash building adjacent to Otay Lakes Road, and a detailing shade structure adjacent to the western property line. Proposed improvements include a 17 -space paved parking lot, perimeter and interior landscape treatments, exterior wall lighting and lighting standards, perimeter fencing, and drainage improvements. The proposed business hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during winter months. The only business operations that would not occur within a partially or completely enclosed building are the detailing area, drying area and vacuum station. The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Pemlit to be considered by the Planning Commission and Design Review of a Precise Plan by the Design Review Committee. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The property is zoned CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and designated CR (Retail Commercial) under the City's General Plan. Carwashes and lube facilities are pemlitted uses with a conditional use pemlit and design review of a precise plan. The proposed use of the site is consistent /3 10102/02 ATTACHMENT 3 with the Zoning classification, General Plan designation, and the City's adopted environmental plans and policies. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental effect. Therefore, 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. Transportati on/Circulati on A tramc study was prepared for the proposed project by Rick Engineering Company, dated August 5, 2002, in order to assess the potential impacts of the proposal to the surrounding street network and to determine the adequacy of on-site circulation for emergency vehicles and truck deliveries. The results of this analysis are summarized below. Existing Conditions The primary access roads into the proposed project area are Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. The main access road to the project site is Ridgeback Road. There are two signalized intersections near the project site; Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road and Otay Lakes Road/East "H" Street. Otay Lakes Road is a classified as a 6-Lane Prime Arterial; currently, there are two lanes of travel in each direction fronting the site. Under existing conditions, this segment of Otay Lakes Road has a capacity of 30,000 average daily trips (ADT) at Level-of-Service (LOS) C. The existing traffic volume on Otay Lakes Road north of Ridgeback Road is 29,100 and south of Ridgeback Road is 29,500, which equates to LOS C. Ridgeback Road, a Class III Collector with one lane of travel in each direction currently operates at LOS A in the project area. Peak hour turning movements at the project area intersections were conducted during 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Consideration was given to conduct the peak hour analysis to coincide with the opening and closing periods of the nearby school. After careful review of the 24-hour roadway machine counts, it was determined that school opening would be captured during the a.m. count period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and the school dismissal occurs much earlier (2:30-3:30 p.m.) and is less intensive than the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street system. Therefore, the calculated peak hour within the count period of both intersections was utilized in the analysis and considered the worst-case scenario. According to the traffic study, the signalized intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road is calculated to currently operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street currently operates at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project SANDAO's Vehicular Traffic Generation Rate for a prototype full service car wash is 900 ADT per site plus 40 ADT per lube stall. According to SANDAG and the ITE Trip Generation Report (6"' Edition), an important tramc-related occurrence indicates that 50% of the trips arriving at a car wash station are "pass-by" trips already on the street system. The proposed project is estimated to generate 980 ADT with 40 a.m. peak hour trips (20 inbound/20 outbound) and 90 p.m. peak hour 2 10/01/02 Ii trips (45 inbound/450utbound), half of which would be new trips on the street system, or 490 ADT with 20 a.m. peak hour trips (10 inbound/1O outbound) and 44 p.m. peak hour trips (22 inbound/22 outbound). According to the traffic study, the signalized intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road is calculated to continue to operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project. All roadways within the project area are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of project traffic. Existing Plus Proposed Project and Approved and Pending Projects According to the traffic study, the signalized intersections and roadway segments within the project area are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of the proposed project as well as approved and pending projects. Based upon the City of Chula Vista's significance criteria, no significant direct project traffic impacts are anticipated to result under this scenario. Year 2012 Analysis In order to analyze future forecasted traffic within the project area, average daily traffic volumes were taken from the 2010 SANDAG Series 9 regional model. Once the volumes were calculated an additional two years were added to derive the 2012 volumes. Based on the City of Chula Vista's significance criteria a significant cumulative impact was identified in the year 2012 scenario with or without the proposed project at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street and the project area segments of Otay Lakes Road. According to the Engineering Division, the proponent will be required to dedicate additional needed right-of-way along the property frontage for a future 6-Lane Prime Arterial as specified on the proposed site plan. A mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay the applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) for the proposed project would lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the proposal to a level of less significance, since the TDIF program will fund the roadway improvements necessary within eastern Chula Vista to mitigate the traffic impacts of planned future growth in this territory. Queuing/Truck Turning Analysis A progression and queuing analysis of the project driveways and the intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road was conducted to determine the affects of inbound/outbound project traffic at the intersection of Otay Lakes RoadlRidgeback Road. The driveway spacing to the signalized intersection is about 110 feet to the most easterly driveway (outbound only) and 200 feet to the westerly driveway. For this analysis, the results from the Synchro and SimTraffic software package were utilized to calculate the 95th percentile queues. The Sim Traffic software package uses the parameters inputted in Ihe Synchro software to record simulations ofthe analyzed condition. Queues from the Sim Traffic software package were then reported. Based on the results of the progression and queuing analysis, no significant increase in queues were calculated at the eastbound and northbound left-turning movements and southbound right-turn movement due to the relatively sma]] amount of peak hour project traffic. Additionally, an analysis was conducted to determine adequate on-site circulation for fire and delivery trucks. The truck turning template showed the proposed site plan to provide adequate ingress/egress and on-sIte circulation for delivery and fire trucks. 3 10/01/02 Ie;- Water/Drainage The project site is beyond the limits of the 500-year floodplain and is not in proximity to any bay or ocean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water related hazards would result from the proposed development. The proposed grading and development of the previously b'Taded, vacant site would result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. The preparation of a final drainage study wi]] be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans and appropriate, properly designed drainage facilities wi]] be insta]]ed at the time of site development. Surface runoff wi]] be co]]ected on-site and discharged into the existing City stonn drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's stonn drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. Based on the planned storm water drainage methodology, the size of the proposed development, and the location of the project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters. A Hydrology Study was prepared by Registered Civil Engineer Joel G. Morrison dated July I, 2002. Street frontage along Otay Lakes and Ridgeback Roads will continue to sheet flow out to the street as it currently does. The improvements (building, parking areas and landscaped treatments) wi]] drain in a northwesterly direction to the existing private storm drain pipe. A new 24-inch x 24-inch concrete drain box wi]] co]]ect this water and connect to the existing private storm drain pipe facility. The drain box wi]] contain a fossil filter or equivalent in accordance with permanent best management practices requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The car wash area and tunnel will retain a]] drainage on-site. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. The operation of the proposed carwash and lube facility is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption. No changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to result from the proposed development of the project site. The proposed car wash area would contain a water reclamation system to conserve water and to avoid the discharge of pollutants generated by the car wash operations into the stonn drain system. The reclaimed water would be recirculated and filtered by use of a barrel screen and a separator; po]]utants would be periodically removed and properly disposed of by a licensed hauler. In accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health standards and regulations for water reclamation systems, wastewater from this system would be discharged into the City's sanitary sewer system. Car lube facilities can create significant water quality impacts unless mitigated to a level of less than significance. The proposed lube facility would contain an underground work environment, a modular underground lubrication system made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic that would be pennanently sealed before being placed in the ground to prevent oils from seeping into the ground. All waste oil and oily rags would be picked up, recorded and disposed of by a licensed oil removal finn in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental. Health standards and regulations. 4 10/0 I /02 1& All grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). Short-term erosion of the cut and fill slopes would be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of temporary de silting and erosion control devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These devices may include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences. dikes, and shoring. Protective devices would be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. Erosion control measures would be installed as required by the City Engineer. Compliance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01, through the implementation of appropriate construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs), as outlined below in Section F, would mitigate potentially significant water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Air Quality Based upon the limitcd amount of site grading that would be neccssary to accommodate the proposed development and the projected amount of new project-generated traffic, 490 average daily trips, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would potentially generate sufficient construction vehicle emissions and dust during construction-related operations to result in a short- term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. Fugitive dust would be created during construction operations as a result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Geophysical The anticipated volume of soil to be excavated to accommodate the proposed lube facility is 270 cubic yards; the maximum excavation depth for this facility is approximately 9 feet. Standard engineering requirements and engineering design would ensure that soils-related impacts would not result. The project site has been previously graded; according to the Engineering Division further grading to accommodate the proposed development would require a grading permit. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Although grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended), significant erosion impacts could occur during excavation and construction operations due to disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in sedimentation in the storm drain system resulting in a significant impact unless mitigated to a level of less than significant. Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. 2001-01 and the implementation of BMPs during and after construction to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment into the storm drain system would be required. 5 10/01/02 /1 Soils erosion impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measure contained in Section F below. Noise A Noise study was prepared for the proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2002. The identified noise generators associated with the proposed development consist primarily of vehicles and pedestrian activity, vehicle deliveries, roof mounted HV AC systems and operation of the quick lube, vacuum station and car wash facility. No public address system is proposed. The closest noise receptor to the site is a two-story office building to the west. Other surrounding land uses include a vacant lot to the north, Otay Lakes Road and single-family residences beyond to the east, Ridgeback Road and a commercial center to the south and apartments to the southwest. The office building to the west would not be significantly impacted by the facility because of the buffering created by the placement of the building and the distance separation from the major noise generators. Based upon the expected level of attenuation and anticipated noise levels to be generated by the proposed equipment, sensitive receptor property line noise levels would range between 41.1 dBA Leq-h for the proposed dryer/blow system and 55.6 dBA Leq-h for the vacuum system. These levels would be below the impact thresholds of the City's Noise Ordinance. Additionally, during daytime hours, especially during the peak traffic hour, the noise generated by the various activities of the facility would be non-impactive compared to the existing traffic noise levels along Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. No significant noise levels are projected to be generated by the proposed project; therefore, compliance with the applicable thresholds oflhe City's Noise Ordinance is anticipated. Hazards The proposed project includes a lube facility that would contain an underground containment system for waste oil. The proposed system is a three-compartment system that would not allow any oils to seep into the ground. Related work of the car wash and lube facility could contain storage of hazardous solvents and materials normally associated with such facilities. However, as a standard condition a business plan that identifies the type, location, storage and use of any hazardous materials shall be filed with the City Fire Department and County of San Diego Environmental Health Department. The proponent is required to have all waste oil and oily rags picked up, recorded and removed by a licensed oil removal firm. Conditions of approval requiring compliance with local, state and federal environmental regulations and the proposed design of the project would reduce any significant hazardous impacts to a level of less than significance. According to the traffic study prepared by Rick Engineering, dated August 5, 2002, a queing/truck turning analysis was completed. It was determined the site plan reflected adequate on-site circulation for emergency vehicles. According to the City Police Department and Fire Department, the development of the commercial building would not interfere with existing emergency response or evacuation plans. No significant queuing or truck turning impact would result from the proposed project. 6 1 % 1/02 I q E. Public Comments On June 27, 2002, a Notice ofInitial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended July 8, 2002. One written comment was received during the public review period. The concerns expressed in the letter dealt with traffic circulation, noise and the removal of waste products from the car wash and lube facility. These issues are addressed above in Section D. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Transporta tion/Circulati on I. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee for the proposed project prior to building permit issuance. Water/Drainage 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading penn it, the City Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management practices. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building pennit, the City Engineer shaH verify that the grading or construction plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to pennanent, post- construction water quality best management practices (BMPs). If one or more of the approved post-construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction; compliance with said plan shall become a penn anent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Air Quality 4. Dust reducing measures shaH include watering of graded surfaces in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board rules and regulations and the restriction of all construction vehicles and equipment to travel along established and regularly watered roadways at specified speeds. 5. During construction, stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shaH be covered or watered in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air PoHution Control District and California Air Resources Board rules and regulations. 6. During construction, dirt and debris shan be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and debris. 7. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, 7 10/01/02 (q front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. 8. Construction equipment shall be tuned prior to the start of construction and shall be maintained in proper working order in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pollutant-emitting construction equipment, including electrica]-powered equipment, shall be used as practical. 9. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. Geophysica] 10. Prior to the commencement of grading, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed. These devices may include dcsilting basins, benns, hay bales, silt fences, dikes and shoring. Protective devices will be provided at every stonn drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the stonn drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8 1 % 1102 ;)fJ G. Consultation I. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building Paul HeHman, Planning and Building Kim Vander Bie, Planning and Building Sohaib Al-Agha, Engineering Frank Rivera, Engineering Ralph Leyva, Engineering David Kaplan, Engineering Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering Jeff Moneda, Engineering Applicant: Lou Brito Other Agencies: Otay Water District 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3. Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study and comments received in response to Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. 0~/t?/h<<Yj' Marilyn . F. Ponseggl Environmental Review Coordinator J :\Planning\!\1ARIA \Initial Study\JS-02-32MND_doc 9 J-I Date: ID/d/t)~ / 10/01/02 ----~ 1....',' ',\, i ' -, ",/)', ~'\i=-' -'-.-. .--, I /.. .' /, "-. ,,</ ~. r j 'j -'.. r " '--- '~ //: -. \ /\/ / ~ - -- \ '''~----- \. \.-.-- /. V I { / 'p', , . \. /. / '. - "'- - .~_./ .... ~ \ . \\ '. 1--. / '\ \ \ ~ '-. I \ \________~ \ ..!$!-- . /'( \\ \ /' '--I //'. '. \'//.' /-.. ...---' \.../. I -- // ..' \ Y f/y \ ~ _ ._~-f5;1 / ..... ) ',- - '@1f<i \ ...-.'" lOCIIION \ ~-."--~-- \/ i..---~. .p \ \ \ .--------- '\ \---,0, ,-( l. I ' \ \/')./...... ......... \ Iz! --j /"---( 'oJ \-~ .~ \-------,\) I / ' " _//. ~ \ ~r~---'\ / \ -~_/~\ , ~. . /' \ \. //' \ - ,I .S.-- \ 0.?V' , I J , -,..J ! ( -- /' DISCOVERY -- /\ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION; C) APPLICANT, LOU BRITO INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS, Comer of !Jay LBkes and Ridgeback Road Request: Proposal for a full service car wash, convenience store and offices. (2) bay lube SCALE: FILE NUMBER: facilities and a (4) bay car detailing building. NORTH No Scale IS-02-032 Related Cases: DRC-02-4Q, PCC~02-49 j: \ho me\p la nn ing\cherrylc\locators \is02032. cd r 06.26.02 J.:L- .E'XHIBrr A z o ....""VI VI v1....WU; .... t:~~~ ~ ~~~B; ~ -n~,,?,: 0 ...;---.= o.D ~ ~ < ~ ~w .....~'" ~ NCLW U ;:;:;VI~ :. a'j~ VI ~~.... a oonu W ~~~ ~ :;;:::0.0. <u ~ ::_on _ ,... <l ~ -' 0 ~ 8 ~~ <: ~ ~.....I I- 6o..J~3V\ g ~ ~ ~3~~ ~ :.:: ~:;;~~3 ~ a:: 'i ~ 'f'P~ ;2 ~ ~f'N""W <:> O"r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~! ~! Q~. i ~ i OQ; I r n ,eji p..j. ! h *~ ~~ ~ Ii ~~ ~~ '0 ~p ~~~ o z I ~0 ~ "r 'V -\. I... "r, 1 ~! *~ ~~ .~... ~ ~ ! n ~~ ~j iO Q< i~ \ t~ ~~ \ I~ ~~ !.~ 3: .. D I!J .'" <'~I" I >:<1>:;1", "'()()..-~ &1--"<tt{"O f-ILINN~9~ }-~ D~"-I!J It ~&:z .(j\) :Z~a.{~-<(> SL.J1l \J)[k'1l it ':'JoJ!l...Z-(::::'UJ y[iifiOS0:{'1SI ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ .~~ ~, ~~ ~t Iii ~2~ ~- O~ -3- ~3 :r: V>z ~:s N 0::0... I- ()~ - V>Q CO ~w - ~V> :r: >- 2 X ~2 LU 00.. \ , ! '-' 0 I ' I ~~ "J !! uztJn 8~u H= .' H~ =17 , =,,~ ~ ~ ~~ Q:J ~ ~ ~ f ! We !:- . }: u :;; ~ "" V '" '" V ~ :J o ~ . ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Aqua Clean Canvash/Lube Center - IS-02-32 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Aqua Clean CmwashJLube Center project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-02-32). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implementcd and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): I. Transportation/Circulation 2. Water/Drainage 3. Air Quality 4. Geophysical MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmcntal issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. Evidence in written form confinning compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-32 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-32, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to detennine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J :\Planning\MARIA \Ini tial Study\JS-02- 3 2 MM RPtext.doc c:L.Y E i" <:: E 'c 0 ::; <:: .Q ro .- ::; t- en :J ~ (,) W :I: (,) :;: ~ C) 0 D:: c.. C) z i= ...... D:: (I) 0 :a c.. w ... D:: t- e z <I: C) z 1i: 0 !:: z 0 :;: z 0 i= <I: C) E :;: N '" , N 0 dJ Q; <= " () " .0 ::> ..J :c '" ro 1; ro U <:: ro " U ro ::> << _ c 0.2 "'... c u 'e !E i=~ - _ c 00 'tJ" o~ ~!E " ~ ::;; " > ~ ~ '" ~ " ::;; c .2 ... ~ ::;; CO oZ :.;:; Q) ~ ~ "'~ ~ rt! ::;; " ::;; . oS ~ .!! . ~ ~ () 'E ~ 0> C ~ ;> ~ .c -3 'ii) >- Hie >. OJ Cl: ~\~iiB~~ &.~ :;::. ro ~ II) C 0) E ". ~ C I: a:: :t- ='~ ro ';:' i5:~ 1t <<0.0 i;l:;; 0'0 ~u :g~ 1::"C 88 'i""" -e:~ x Q;.:.o .;.0 ;~ ~ .. ",- ._ 0. E "w ~ u " " a. ~ 0><' c " '6 E =>. => ro mo. : i S (; c';:: 00. i~"g {' &"e reo ~~ .. '.;\ i" " >-'" " 0 ;i; :c g. ;],: g ~ .,0..<:: 0.- ro ~ ".E :5 :E ~ filu.. c a.t) ro = ro::J ro 0. ~ ~E= c: c"E m ~ Q) W i=Eo. 8:8-g row'- ~ ~ ~ ~ >-0.0 ~ 0> C ~ 'S m ",,'0 oct: ",ro" co> E ~.s I: "_ c ro (iCQ a.~ w <<0.0 x c o t5 " 0. ~ E 2 Ci5 E -3:~'~ .cE~9 (jSoC;_ ilJi:?Q3g~ :5 rom ,.0 - o..s: 0 >. :=: 0> Z ~ E ern '- ~ !l):O C (I) 0- C. ro .Q"E ..... g> ~ ~O 2 iJroa:::a~ ~ ~.SQ '51\) ~~ ~ ~ * c......~o- en ro ro 0) ~ o:5::.~gvj Q).coO:,J8 0._ <.n C <.):.= C Q5 c ro ::J I.) Q) ~ > 0 U) 1:; ~ 0) ~ro:0-c:ig?~ ~'-.c>ru8c ,- Q) V) 2 0 " ro -5 '- Q.m .9 E Q .9 :E~ot5 g Q} '- C......b Q) ro m .g .~~ a g ffi S CLw~O~E N c o .~ S >-6 O~ :g 'C ~ ~ _ c {i'a. o.c <<w x x x '0 C ro o>~ co. .- " ",co cKjOJ rso::.!: ~>.g Q..-=: ::J <<om '0 C ro o>~ co. .- " ",co cffiO) ~a:: .!: 'E.>.g o.:~ :J <<om x x w ~ "- c c C 0 .Q 0 t5 1:3 jj " " " 0. 0. 0. ~ '" ~ E E E 2 2 2 Ci5 Ci5 Ci5 1?6roQ55~c~.9:-Q1? ......5"E:.=og=o~..... ":i g 610 g'Z:: rn.-.c...... E.b Q) .b .~.c c.:!: 0 Qj(/)a::: a(J).-'..(JjU) ,-3:...... a.6ro.6I5rr.~c~~~ O}u'cQ)u~-=:::roc E .!:..... .....O::t5caCDCi-6>@ Q) E :Qo~ O'-"C C=.::ro .- O}- 0 Q.!/) oo..W Q.:J..... :JcroO} .Q):O::;;~ Eo-O} .D'60-S!:!c u uca.co Q) e oro_OaJi32 OU.....o.. O}cnoc~~U;5Q)c-cO} .!: Q) ~~ E D..5t5.!:-Q Q).~ 16=.Q _<Dc~2:t)iij'E a co .~ "E a. Q) U; 1;) 0 .s E g. >...c::oroOE&.CCVlQ)a::: c..........o.....aJ ooca. ro~a.cat)~-g~i38 -g ow~e~~1):g~ororo ~ ~ ..... c :J3 E 0.. a.:g c Q) g> cro-Eo........Cl.roUJQ)ES.c ~ ~ .~ O::e :J3 ro c Q) E ~ t5.....>..c3:n1?Q)-E~~5 .- Q) Ci="- >...... -E c ~ Q)~Eroo=- .9(1)_ -E'(5} 0 a.,..!. ~ o(ij-a E~ g ocU go-~::;~EUJ:O::;; .....wUJWN.....O.....ro8 ro o>.C..... .2Ega. c_Q> 'C:':::: ro ro 0 ro ..... Q) Q) ro:':::: o..Oa.~Z 3: OU) o..-Ea.~ '" ~') --0 b':: 5 O}-a -a ~ <C.::; 5 (1) ~ ro-Z'ro.~-<O:: rnS.Et5~.g ~@~ o8~~~rog c3:(/)ro O}.....{ij Q).....- ~ Ob'C .2 ~ 0 -E ~: rn -a cE Q) O}-a --0 ..... >. ..c Q) c .- ..... c c c C ro ..... Q; :J {ij ~EroroQ)3: ,*Ei8CJtri Q)~~~E~ 'cu.....-gc "OtI)b.Q.9-0 $Q)c"rog :J 0 (1)..... :J..... ro.D O}-' ro g E 6 -3 g~ E ro.~.g-s := ~ (3 0)-0 ~ "O..c b 1i) OJ ro-'.b~Crn ~UJII)D~ ..c:5 C --0 ro 3: '6. Q) U) _-a w-- 0 c w ~ E 0 0 c UJ3:()ro~~ goE~ro ~~g:J3:E~ v;~~gID ~@'g:;Q)>~ .ro.....O-s ro ..... C ID..c:: c ..... Q)"Eo--oc~ -QE;~o-a E8o..(ij.Q-o 11S3::gro o>u.....ot)c -' Q) 0 cro<iCD:Jro bIDUotC .q 'g.!: 0 IDt5~ g~~CL i{j ~ -aUJg>u8-55 .uro"E~u :::I ID Q).- ::; U.- UJ OJ"::; 8 ::; 0' "::~Oo_:D~ccuOo '- UJ'tcUJ(ij!9Q)c$rog>UJ .,"( 6~~~b~g68.~o~ ... "' E [1J t: S 'c o :;; t: .2 10 "' ~ ('oJ '" N o en :;; E Q) o Q) .<:> " ..J :c "' ro 2; ro o t: ro Q) U ro " 4: '0 t: '" o>~ 00. .- Q) ",co c~O> ~ [[.= '5..>-g a.~ =' <<OCD >< ...... Q) J3 CU I- o .Q 13 Q) c. ~ "' $ o o ~ o Q) C ~ w..c:.Q ~ ~B2 V)1?Q}(J){j) rn...... > Q) c ;: a> >.::; 0 w(.).DQO .Q.g"O~o ro~~u>- ..c: ~ ct!= V)Brse~ .!:2..!H "- 8:-0 .DD:m<(W ~!j (1)-= ffi "O:g E.~ ~ c ~ (l) Qj U ~ c.~ro~ '6~aE~", .c'Ei}..c:"C cOCIJ:)(f).D goo.(f)('IJ~ g~o:V~'D '- rn c > ro c tno.oocrn :s :J'ii5cg~ UD..~Q)u"c o>wo.E2-o .= 3: ~ ~ U; 2 '- (/) (/) 0 C rn 8o~E8~ <0 0> o :.g .5 CD -"''0 Gffi '" co> 13." ._ c:...... (iCe. a.~ Q) <<0.0 >< c o 'fl Q) 0. ~ c $ o V) W "'0 cu 0. C 2 g-u ro_o ern (lJg~~ gE~P8roo.. g.&......_ E Cii ~ CI)~~,g~~ro ~~WVJIDCg!cU aCJ}>Q)rogoQ) ()Q)8TIE ..om ro C 0 ro Qj: ~oo'-x Q) !?.xc .~ tI) c:._.s ro OJ.- ..c:-o~(f)Q)U(l)g <Dro.....c.....wc.c >.20Cl]~..c~8 .~CJti=;:::::::;o E.!:"!:w(tlornOl g'52 ro ~t5-6~ ro 0. ctI Q) ro ro c (JU)EC'-.D.$!w .c~Q)o~"O~:5 ...... .......c: C._ C ..... .~ --..... Q) co ro........ 0 ~ e-.D C ......- g Q) ~:hJg(;)8g=0) C'- __ =' ..... ro-a roL: CD E (lJ-..c Q) "O~> :5vflf.lij) ~@ Oro.....Q)"Oo. .q-- u -;:: 0:2 ro 0. ......(jjQ)Q)!I).Q:::I ro"-:Jro OJQ) Q) (t) C~EE~5~5 "- '" c :Q '5 CD -"''0 G~ '" 00> ~" ._ c..... "'Q..Co. a.~ Q) <<0.0 >< o o t5 Q) 0. ~ o $ o "6 _ to) '00> rs g.!: Q).!:;p !I)':':: ~ -g ~ ~ o;ng a. B~.~:'rJ o g-.!Q ~ ~ .;:: .... E E VI 0. ~ Q).9-:J "'0._...... :J Q) ~-g2 g~ .2 .S ~ 5 ~ 15 ~ 8.:g ~ rn'{ij.~ 2 C ..cE('IJt)Q) (/) Q) Q) c E c..o'~8.9- (1)= E :J E ~ :~ g g .9- (/) E B"O @-"'O o'E ~ Q) ~ -: t1? ~ .~8-E~8. t5t:5o:;...!.. .s 2.~ '5.~ ~ U) (D a.t5 o51?S:Q) OooOQi '" 0> C '2 .5 CD C'O o~ '" 00> ~" ._ c...... "Q..Ca. a.~ Q) <<0.0 >< o Q 13 ~ c. ~ c 2 o Q) ~ .<:>~ _0 OJ.c .c ~ ~ Q) ~o. 8 ~ .{g'E ~~ '0'0 Q) Q) ~ 8 g-~ ~ ~~ Q) Q52i ~ ~ ,"'0 "0 o~ C ~ ro 0 Q) ~ U.c ffi ~ ..0"0 ~ .2~ Ow (/) C E '5 2i g- '0 ~ Q) (/) ~ C') '" &f;7 0> ." Q; Q) ~.~ c '" c ~co =LlJ.w a. >..- a.:t: .~ <<00 Uj""': o~ "u "'''' c. ~ g x ou .. Et 5 x u N " '" v bI> '" "- c o :g Q) 0. ~ "' $ o >-~ '('IJ Q) Q) ~.c.'~ ~ ~ -:...19 (/) Q) C..c L' (f) E"O ~ t- >. ~ C Q) Q) Q)' ..... g'a;..oE a.~-go E.Q u) ~ .9 1:i5 I'tI Q) Q) =.~........... >. 0>-5 ......1'tIf/JeQ)(/}C_ ci~l'tIa..cc'6o _~ (f)~ o'~'~ ~ \5 --g ~ o~ ;?'cu -0 OJ~ 01';;:= ';::0 -0 E ~ ~ Q)f/J ..........- o"O.g~ E~.~~ ceQ)"O.9Q)"OBJ Q)......"'Ocrn..c.8Q) E C ::J I'tI ~..... O.c Q) 8 TI rn Q) 0>.,Q,! ...... g CO~~ >-EQ5.9 Q) 02 ~'6 ~.8 ~ VI E:g E (/)- ('IJ C..o ~ E.... Q)"'O Q) -- g Q) (f) () Q) E ro a. 'O~c:go.cc Q) c.;; $! >.t= (/) Q) =(lJQ)=::ec~EQ5 o g-o or;;:; a. Q) :3 ~ Q) -::e~u)Q)E(f)o.~ O'Vi Q).!Q~'6 ('IJ 5.0> 6: ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ .S ti] o ~ Case No.IS-02-32 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Lou Brito 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 640 Albion Street San Diego, CA 92106 (619) 698-6775 4. Name of Proposal: Aqua Clean Carwash/Lube Center 5. Date of Checklist: October 1, 2002 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Signifi(3nt Impact No Impact I. 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)? o o o I>J o o o I>J o o o I>J d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? o o o I>J Comments: a) Under the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project site is designated CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and is zoned CR (Retail Commercial); carwashes and lube facilities are permitted uses in this zone with a conditional use permit and design review of a precise plan. b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, the proposed development would not encroach into the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Habitat Preserve area. c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources. -1- ~, -'-".-"--'-'----.'-'" ._-_._--~----.--..__.. -,.--.- d) The proposed development of a car wash and lube facility would not disrupt or divide the established adjacent Rancho Del Rey community or surrounding commercial and professional office environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless SignifICant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o a) The proposed car wash and lube facility would have no effects upon regional or local population, as it is a commercial land use and not a housing development. b) The proposed car wash and lube facility would not directly or indirectly induce population growth, as it is a minor retail commercial land use. c) The vacant project site does not contain any housing development. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Putentially III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would rhe proposal result in or PotcnliaUy Significant I.cS5 than Signitil:ant Unless Significant No expose people ro potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 0 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements. compaction or 0 0 0 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 0 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 0 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 0 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 0 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any - 2- d-;? bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 181 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 181 0 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 181 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 181 0 0 ~ 3 ~ de; -----.-..--- ..,...____.M>__...___._..,..___.._, ~-~_._.~.,._.._._. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 II!I or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 II!I e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 II!I non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Potentially Significant LessthaD Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in: Impact !\.Utigaled Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 II!I 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 II!I sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 II!I 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 II!I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 II!I 0 bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 II!I alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 II!I h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 II!I Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 II!I concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 II!I trees)? - 4- 30 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 ~ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ~ vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~ f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 ~ efforts? Comments: a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. b) No locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. c) No locally designated natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. d) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. \. _.' e) No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created as a result of the proposed project as the development site is a designated development area in the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 protection, will this project impact this protection? No Impact ~ ~ ~ Comments: a) The project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. -5- 3/ b) The proposed facility would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources. c) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation does not designate the project site for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products. pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? - 6. .-):L Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 !j 0 D 0 0 D D D !j D D D D 0 D D 0 0 Putentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact D D 0 D D D 0 D Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated No Impact Less than Significant Impact D D o o b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0 Comments: a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed car wash and lube facility would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. b) According to the Police Department, adeqnate police protection services can continne to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed car wash and lube facility would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services. c) The proposed car wash and lube facility would not induce any population growth; the project would not result in any adverse impacts to public schools, as it is a minor retail commercial project. d) The proposed car wash and lube facility is a minor retail commercial project and will not create a significant impact to existing public facilities, create the need for additional public facilities or alter the maintenance of such facilities. An equestrian trail easement exists outside the proposed project boundary. along the eastern side. The equestrian trail easement originates in Bonita and travels through the Rancho Del Rey SPA, extending south. The trail traverses along the eastern boundary outside of the proposed project site, within a landscaped area. The proponent has committed to enhancing the landscaped treatments along the Otay Lakes frontage and maintaining the equestrian trail, thus improving an existing facility. e) As a private facility, the proposed car wash and lube facility does not require the need for governmental services. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. - 7- 33 Potentiall}' Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Inlpact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Fire/EMS 0 0 II 0 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, as the car wash and lube facility is less than three miles from the nearest fire station and would be associated with a four-minute response time. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police 0 0 '" 0 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The Police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Traffic 0 0 '" 0 I. 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 "0" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of I-80S: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Comments: According to the traffic study, the proposed project would generate 980 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the results of the traffic study, the LOS "c" or better traffic threshold standard would be met on the Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road project area street segments with the proposed development. Mitigation: Future development and traffic impacts for future buildout. III accordance with - 8 - '3'1 the General Plan, are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Inlpaet Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Comments: The project is located east of 1-805, however, the park pad obligation will not be required as the project is a commercial land use. The parks and recreation threshold standard does not apply. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially PoleJ1tially Significant L€>ssthan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 0 181 0 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 Plants) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed project will include a new 24-inch x 24-inch concrete drain box that will collect project water and connect to the existing storm drain facility. According to the Engineering Division, a drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and discharged into the existing City storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. According to the Engineering Division, the proposed project would comply with the drainage threshold standard. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless J\titigaled Less than Significant Impact No Impact f) Sewer o o 181 o The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plants) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: No new sewer service would be required to serve the proposed project. - 9- 3~ Proper engineering design of required sewer improvements to serve the project would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Water 0 0 ~ 0 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chu]a Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The project site is an in-fill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. Pursuant to correspondence received from the Otay Water District, dated February 21, 2002, the project may be serviced off the existing 12-inch main on Otay Lakes Road and the lO-inch main on Ridgeback Road. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 ~ 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 ~ 0 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 ~ 0 D Solid waste disposal? 0 0 ~ 0 Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adequately service the proposed - to 3~ carwash and lube facility would be implemented by the City, subject to the approval of the appropriate utilities and service providers. No significant impact to utilities and service systems would be created as a result of the proposed project. b) See XIII.a. c) See XIII.a. The project site is within the service area of the Otay Water District. Pursuant to correspondence from the Otay Water District, dated February 21, 2002, the project may be serviced from existing potable water mains. d) See XIII,a. According to the Engineering Division, there is an S-inch sewer line running easterly along Ridgeback Road that connects to an S-inch sewer line running northerly along Otay Lakes Road. City Engineering staff has determined that existing sewer mains are adequate to serve the proposed project. e) See X11I.a. There are three curb inlets existing at the intersection of Ridgeback Road and Otay Lakes Road. The adequacy of the existing storm drainage facilities to serve the project will be determined at the time of detailed engineering design; any improvements to the storm drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the applicant. t) See Xll1.a. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant N. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 iii public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 iii 0 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 iii d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 iii 0 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 iii 0 Comments: a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site. b) In accordance with the City's General Plan. Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are -II 37 designated scenic roadways. The project proposes access via two unsignalized driveways along Ridgeback Road; a full access driveway and an outbound only driveway from the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Ridgeback Road. Landscape treatments along Otay Lakes Road are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, (Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to these scenic roadways are not significant. c) The vacant project site is within an urbanized area and contains overgrown non-native vegetation. The development of a car wash and lube facility on the project site would not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Proposed improvements along the site's two street frontages, including landscaping, decorative hardscape, and maintenance of an existing equestrian trail, would have a positive aesthetic effect. d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed and installed, with appropriate shielding if necessary. to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and surrounding commercial, office or residential areas. e) See XIV.d. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. PotentiaUy XV, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal: Imp;u;:t Mitigated Impact Impact a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction or 0 0 0 C!!J a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects 0 0 0 C!!J to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change, 0 0 0 C!!J which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 0 0 C!!J the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 C!!J EIR as an area of high potential for archaeological resources? Comments: a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below. b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area. - 12 3K See XV.e. below. c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values. d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal. e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultural resources in the City's General Plan EIR. The project site was previously pre-graded for a previous project that was never completed. The proposed project includes a lube center that will require excavation of approximately 9 feet and 7 inches for the work bays and containment system. The anticipated volume of soil to be excavated for the lube bays and containment system would be 270 cubic yards. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed car wash and lube facility, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. PotentiaU}' Significallt Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Signifkant Impact No Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? o o o o Comments: The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan EIR. Based upon the low sensitivity of the site and the relatively minor amount of proposed excavation, impacts to paleontological resources are not anticipated to be significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or programs? Potentially Potentially Significant Lesstban Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Comments: a) Because the proposed car wash and lube facility is a commercial retail land use, it would not induce any population growth nor require park pad fees. Thus, the project would not - 13 3<; .-.. ',--- _._._'-"-".--"---"---~----' __~____~_.__....~w____ result in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational opportunities. b) No recreational facilities exist or are proposed on the project site. The proposal would not affect existing off-site recreational opportunities, i.e., equestrian trails. Use of the existing equestrian trail that runs alongside the eastern property line of the project site would not be restricted by the proposed project. The proponent through project design has included the equestrian trails in the landscaping treatments and has agreed to maintain the trail. The proposed project would not create a significant impact to existing recreational opportunities. c) According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Impart Pot..ntiaUy Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impad No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration Jar mandatory findings of significance. If an EJR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? o o o o Comments: The site is currently vacant, is within a commercial area, and is within the designated development area the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The site was previously disturbed with pre-grading. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? o o o 1'1 Comments: The project would not affect long-term environmental goals of the City because the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (dated October 9, 2000). The project site is - 14 </.0 .' ^."""--"~'-~"-"-'~---""---'-'------,-"",,~,-,--.,.--,-- ~- slated for infill development. No significant short-term impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Does the project have impacts that are individua1ly limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incrementa] effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o till o o Comments: According to the traffic study, under 20]2 conditions, the project would result in significant cumulative traffic impacts unless mitigated to a leve] of less than significance. According to the Engineering Department, the proponent will be required to make a dedication ofright-of-way, 64-feet from centerline, for a future 6-lane Prime Arteria] as noted in the approved site plan. Additionally, a mitigation measure requiring the proponent to contribute to the Transportation Deve]opment Impact Fee would lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the proposal to a level of less than significance. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section D. d) Does the project have environmental effects which wi1l cause substantia] adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o o till Comments: No significant effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated to result from the proposed project. The 0.57 -acre site is currently unoccupied and is zoned for commercia] land uses. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Impacts, and Tab]e I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-32. - 15 eft XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have 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 line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. j L00 ~ ~{',-\O Printed Name and Title of Property Owner (or authorized presentativ h.)- 'S <) <- Date J 10'.s '-' ~ Date Printed Name and Title of Operator (if different from Property Owner) Date Signature of Operator (if different from Property Owner) Date XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Signit1cant Impact" or "Potentially Signit1cant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning . Transportation/Circulation D Public Services D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems . Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics . Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources . Air Quality D Noise D Recreation D Paleontological D Mandatory Findings of Signit1cance Resources - 16 (,t;l XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 environment. 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 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o 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 (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. -0~L1./t?~ ~. Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator / tJ/.;L/~';;'" ~Date J :\Planning\M^ RIA \Initi a 1 Sludy\IS0232chk!sLdoc Page - 17 ~3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/2002 1- ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-77 is a proposal for a 750 square foot accessory second unit with an attached 400 square foot, two-car garage in a Single-Family Residence (R-I) zone. The accessory unit will be situated behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 682 Ash Avenue. The second unit is in compliance with state government code regulations 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. The property owner proposes to build a 750 square foot accessory second unit with an attached 400 square foot two-car garage resulting in a combined size of 1,150 square foot unit on a 7,316 square foot lot. The lot currently contains an existing 1,063 square foot single-family dwelling, which includes an attached one-car garage. The second unit, as described, is in compliance with the applicable provisions ofthe state government code. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a) new construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC - 02-77, based on the findings and conditions contained therein for a accessory second unit per state Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The property is 7,316 square feet in size and is essentially flat with an existing 1,063 square foot single-family dwelling and attached one-car garage. The uses adjacent to the property include single-family dwellings to the north, south and east and commercial to the west. The proposed location ofthe second unit is behind the existing single-family dwelling and would have access ftom an adj acent alley. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use Site: North: South: East: West: General Plan Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Thoroughfare Zoning R-I R-I R-I R-I C-T Current Land Use Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Commercial I Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 11113/02 3. Proposal The project proposed is a 750 square foot accessory second unit that includes two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and one bathroom. The attached 400 square foot two-car garage will help the site meet the off-street parking requirement for the existing single-family dwelling; an additional parking space will be provided for the proposed unit. The combined square footage of the accessory unit and garage will be 1,150 square feet. State law provides regulations that enable cities without adopted ordinances to process accessory second unit applications. Currently, State law allows cities to require a conditional use permit in each case. State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(l)(A)-(I) is explained below: (b) (1) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July 1, 1983, or within 120 days after receiving its first application, the 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, but may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The accessory second unit 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 1,200 square feet. (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 by local health officer is required if a private sewage disposal system is utilized. ANALYSIS: The proposed accessory second unit has been designed and sited to meet the state criteria and local zoning ordinance, as outlined below: (A) The accessory second unit cannot be sold, but may be rented. (B) The accessory second unit is in a R-I (Single-Family Residence) zone. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot of an existing primary single- family dwelling. (E) The accessory second unit will be detached from the existing dwelling. (F) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed I ,200-square feet (1,150 square feet 750 for livable area and 400 for garage area). (G) The proposed detached second accessory unit will comply with all of the required R-1 development standards, as outlined in the table below: ~ Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/02 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Height Lot Coverage Setbacks: Front 15 feet *5 feet (ITom alley) Rear 20 feet N/ A Side 13 feet both sides 27 feet both sides From Main Dwelling 10 feet 16 feet From the Alley * 5 feet 5 feet Parking 3 spaces 3 spaces Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 45 percent 30 percent * Any garage that has access from an alley shall be located 25 feet from the opposite side of the alley with a minimum setback of five feet from the from the alley. ALLOWED/REQUIRED 15 feet or 1.5 stories 40 percent PROPOSED 13 feet 30 percent (H) Fees, and other charges shall be paid in association with the required building pennit, to be applied for and reviewed in confonnance with local building codes upon approval of this Conditional Use Pennit; (I) Sewer service will be provided by the City ofChula Vista (not a private system). There is no requirement for local health official approval. The subject property is located in an R-I zoning district. The proposed project will be located behind the existing dwelling and is subject to the required rear yard, side yard and on-site building setbacks, and a minimum 5-foot setback from the adjacent alley, which will provide access for the accessory unit. Currently, there is no adopted local ordinance that enables the City of Chula Vista to regulate accessory second units; therefore, the City relies on State law, which allows second units up to 1,200 square feet of floor area. The floor area of the second unit is 750 square feet and the attached two- car garage is 400 square feet, resulting in a 1,150 square foot unit, which is below the state law maximum. The lot size limits the applicant's ability to adequately detach the garage or locate it elsewhere on the lot without reducing the existing rear yard open space, and creating unusable space. The proposed second unit in the rear yard will have the least impact on the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood, and will not impact the intent of the R-I zoning district. Furthennore, the garage portion ofthe unit adjacent to the alley will face the back of a commercial building (across the alley). The project, as described, satisfies State law for accessory second units and meets the City OfChula Vista's required findings to approve a Conditional Use Pennit. State law declares that accessory second units are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and region-wide problem of providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and do not adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located. The 7,316 square foot lot is sufficient in size to adequately accommodate the existing dwelling and 3 Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 11/13/02 the proposed project. The architecture and site planning are consistent with single-family character of the surrounding residences. Furthermore, the project provides needed affordable housing and is consistent with the General Plan's Housing Element and will not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Staffrecommends approval of the application for a Conditional Use Pennit to allow the accessory second unit and garage behind the existing single-family residence at 682 Ash Avenue, in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-77. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Resolution PCC-02-77 3. Application Materials J :\Planning\M ichael\PCC Reports\PCC-02-77 y A--r-rI-lCItMEt0I./ C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ APPLICANT: RUBEN N. HERNANDEZ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT AODRESS: 682 ASH AVENUE Request: Proposal for accessory second unit. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: ~ NORTH No Scale PCC-02-77 j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcc0277.cdr 05.13.02 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-02-77, FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT LOCATED BEHIND AN EXISTING PRIMARY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 682 ASH AVENUE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(1 )(A)-(I). WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 22, 2002, by Ruben Hernandez; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests pennission to build an accessory second unit behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 682 Ash Avenue. The accessory unit includes two bedrooms, a living area, kitchen and one bathroom, and is in compliance with the provision found in the State Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location , ofIimited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Pennit 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 November 13, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the conditional use pennit application, the Planning Commission voted to approve the conditional use pennit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use pennits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that pennits the stated finding to be made. 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 requested use is an accessory second unit that will be established within an existing single-family residential neighborhood. State law decJares that accessory second units o are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices' within existing neighborhoods. Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and region-wide problem gf providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and does not adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located. 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 accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. The 7,316 square foot lot is sufficient in size to accommodate the existing dwelling and accessory second unit with the attached garage. The architecture and site planning are consistent with single-family character of the surrounding residences. The accessory second unit will be located in the rear yard behind the existing dwelling and will have access from the adjacent alley. In addition, the unit will be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The conditional approval of PCC-02-77 requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit for or occupancy of any new building on the property. The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the California Government Code relating to detached accessory second units as follows: (A) The accessory second unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family use. (C) The accessory second unit will be constructed in conjunction with a primary single-family residence on the lot. (D) The accessory second unit is detached and will be located on the same lot as a single-family residence. (E) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed 1,200-square feet (1,150 square feet: 750 for livable area and 400 for garage area). (F) The accessory second unit meets local requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone. (G) The accessory second unit project meets local building code requirements for detached dwellings, as appropriate. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. This Conditional Use Permit is in compliance with the General Plan, because Section 65852.2b.5 of the California Government Code provides that accessory second units are 7 exempt from the existing or future General Plan and zoning density regulations. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-77 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant and/or property owner(s): ENGINEERING DNISION 1. The applicant/owner shall pay the appropriate fees including, but not limited to sewer capacity and traffic signal fees for the project. PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant/owner shall obtain a letter stating fire flow requirements from the Chula Vista Fire Department and submit the letter to the Sweetwater Authority. . 3. The applicant shall connect the second accessory unit to the existing water line on the property. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit in compliance with 1998 California Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Code, and National Electrical Code 5. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall be submitted in conformance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the accessory second unit will be architecturally compatible with and/or match the primary single-family dwelling. Said plans shall be kept on file in the Planning Division, in compliance with the conditions contained herein and Title 19 of the CYMC, subject to the approval of the Planning and Building Director. STANDARD CONDITIONS 6. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked, and the existence of this use permit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed unit, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document. 7. 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 which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. ~ 8. 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. 9. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified conditional use permit. 10. The applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to inderrmifY, protect, defend and hold hannless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, 1Tom and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City'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, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 11. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant Date INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enfOl ceabili ty 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, C) this resolution and the pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby approve Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-77 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Russ Hall, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary . (D - frm+CJftv1SNi b Clr~' OF CHULA YISTA Planning & Building Department 01Y Of 276 Fourth Avenue CHUlA VISrA (619)691-5101 II TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED (Check One) Development Processing :\pplication Form - Type A Page One R Conditional Use Permit o Variance o Design Review U Special Land Use Permit [Redave/oprnent Areas Only) (staff use ontv) Case No.: pee - D 2 -1'1- Filing Date: 4-\ 72_1 01- By: Bej Assigned Planner: 'U:\u:.1\ \Io.n f'.)O.:-i" e.I Receipt No.: bl - DC lJ'':>LD?' 'i'> Project Acct: (1,5 - \1\2'1 Deposit Ace!: DQ - S 'i- )., Related Cases: N/A o LA. ~PubIiC Heartng o Miscellaneous: II APPLICANT INFORMATION IApPlicant ~ame .. _ , Ruben N. Hernanae" iApplicant Address I 682 Ash Ave. ,Appli::ants Interest in PrO;::8fiY : ~ Own 0 Lease D in E:scrow i .. . Phone No. (619) 425-23-32 Ii I I I I I I ::J Option to purchase If ap~h~ant is not owner, owners authorizatbn IS requirej to process request. See si;)nature on Page Two. iArchitect/Aoent i - I I.:iguel Brarrbila iArchitect/Aaent Aadress i - I '?hone No. (619) 479-64-67 2116 La Siesta Wav Nntinn?l r;~7 r~ qlg~n_h?~7 II GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types) IProject No" is , ?rooosed Use I i He..rnandez 8:'a.'TW Flat : General Description ot F'iO::>osed Project : [Please use ADpendix A to ::xovide a ful! desc.-Jotion and justification tor me project) Prop_ 8:'anny ?lac:. . Has 0 representative attenosj 0 Pre;-ApplicatJ:>n Conterencs to j!s::uss this groiect? I' what th d t ? ., /.- -4 )~r'" P Ap N "" .-, -.., - I . '"'. J SO, I was e a e. .:.... --i.!:)I......., J-'---:-- re- p D.: ~n: ,""" '7"'__ ves !I S~!:B.JECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types) I Location/Srrget Address 682 _'ish Ave. iAssessors Parcel No. I i 572-131-10-00 ,Curren ! "" . "" i nLI1 \ ,Current Lano Use I I S.?R. slgnatlon Redevelopment Area [if applicat>lej f I I I , , eSlgnoTlon [it aoplic"t>ieJ I I I' I i ; ?-l /1 n/a Is this in Montgomery S.P? no ~ ~ {fc.. -.- . - - - -- - -- - - CITY OF CHULA VISTA PlaJlIli.:Jg & Building Departrnem 276 Fourth Avenue (619)691-5101 Development Processing Appiication Form Page Two 01Y OF CHUlA VlSfA ,I I [staff use onlv) Case No.: Type of Use Proposed o Residential 0 COr.l:n. D Ind, DOther i Landscape Coverage (% of Lot) , , : Building Coverage (% of Lot) I I r ! i PROPOSED PROJECT (all types) II RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY Type of Dwelling Unit(s) i Number of Lots Ii . No. of Dwelling Units Proposed Existing 13;:: 23R 3+3K TOT:J '-.>ensny (LJUs/:J::::rej !/I:JXlmum BUllalng Helgnt Minimum LOT ::>Ile ,Aver:J;;r:: LOT ::>Ize . ~ 7 lcj.c. ;;:Jrkina SD:J::::es 13 I Total 7,000 S;:). Off-street ?T. : 7,000SQ ?T. I Type of Parkin:J (SIZ": wn"t1'1e, c:>v"red) , - I " Garage jlOx19 2 Require::: :JY Code: Provided: Open Sp:J::::e Description (!'::::res eactl of DrNaTe, common, and landscaping) Hours of O;:Bration (D:Jys & ,.,Y~,s) I BUilding Hel;;r:tT , ! : Ii j I ! jl NON-RESIDENTL\.L PROJECT SU:MMARY Gross Hoor Mea [ST) Pro:x)sed ::xlsting ,';''lticipate:J TOTOI # Empi::JVees I M:Jx. .,;. aT t:mployees at anyone Time , ?arking Sp:JCes Require:J , Sp:J::::es Provided I Type of p:Jrking (size) # of Stuaen-s/Chridren I~ ::::::"=0:>") I A;;re 0; STuaems/cnll:Jren [~0001l00"''') I SeaTing C:JD:JCrry I I i ~ I, // V /7 /J~ A;:>tJ T o:~gent Signature ~ll~~at;~ [Re:Juired if AppHc:Jnt Is not Owner} , Leiter of owner consent rT/:J! de used in Heu of signature. /:2.... ~hquel Brambila ?rint Applic:Jm or Agent N:Jme Ruben N. HeTIlandez 04-22-02 D:J1e ?rint Owner N:Jnle , / "..,. /-" ~ 'orh' -~ _ Date ~\~ ~"f- ~~ Planning & Building Deportment Planning Division - Development Processing 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. CA 9J9]0 (6J9) 691-5101 cmQf CHULA VISIA Application Appendix "A" PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NAME: Hernandez APPLICANT NAME: Ruben N. Hernandez Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/of operation of the proposed project. You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the appli:::ation. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as listed in . listed in the Application Procedural Guide. DescriDtion & Justification. BuiE. a house for parent to live part tine, between ~Exico and U.S.A. /J ~> Appendix B THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Ruben N. Hernandez 2. If any person< identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 3. If any person< identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of . any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No--X-. If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. -' .... ,Ruben N. HeDlandez M~ 'J"~l Q-r::lmbi lia 6 Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No --"'- If yes, state which Councilmember(s): (NOTE: ATTACH ADD/TIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) Date: 04-22-02 x Signature of contractor/applicant ~1iguel Brambila Print or type name of contractor/applicant If * Person is defined as: "Any individual,jirm. co-partnership,joim venture, association, social c/ub,frea/ernal organization. corporation, es/ale, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and coumry, city municipalit}: district, Dr other political subdivision, or any o~~e'"._gr..o.l!E. C!: co.mbinaiion actinz as a unit. :' _ _._.....__ .___~'_____'__.____'.____ '" ~ APPENDlX C (I of]) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT Permit Applicant: Applicant's Address: Type of Permit: Agreement Date: Deposit Amount: Ruben N: .Hernandez 682 A.c;h. l',,,,,, Grarmv Flat 2,000.00 This-Agreement -{".Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay." 1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty. As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opjnion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty". 2. City's Duty. City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application. 2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City. IS APPENDIX C (20[2) 2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement. 3. Remedies. 3.1.' Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. 3.2. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. 4.2 Goveming LawNenue. This Agreement shall be govemed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brQught only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of Califomia, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or .as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 4.3. Multiple Signatories. If there are mUltiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. 4.4. Signatory Authority. This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant. 10 APPENDIX C (3 of 3) 4.5 Hold Harmless. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights, except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the -City, its officers, or employees known to, but. not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. 4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the C{ity of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA By: Dci!Iaef 04-22-02 r) \~ A!~ ./k Ruben N. Hernandez 682 Ash Ave. Chu1a Vista Ca. 91911 By: 17 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: .f:)' Meeting Date: 11/13/02 ITEM TITLED: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-11; Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines to add a contemporary architecture style to the WR-I Land Use District permitted palette of house designs. (The EastLake Company). The applicant, The EastLake Company, has submitted an application to amend the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines, to add an American Contemporary architecture style to the acceptable house designs permitted within the WR-I parcel as shown on the adopted SPA Plan (see Figure 2). The amended sections of the adopted EastLake III SPA Plan consists of a description of the "American Contemporary" house architectural style, a list of design characteristics, and design requirements dealing with roof pitch, roof materials, overhangs, siding, stucco finish, chimneys, porches, balconies, window treatments, entries, garage doors and elevations of the structure. The subject amendment is attached as Attachment B. 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 environmental as defined under Section 15061 (General Rule Exemption) of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 Subsection (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution PCM-03-11, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSIONI ANALYSIS: The WR-I sub-area of East Lake Woods is the lowest density housing area in EastLake Woods. It is comprised of 64 custom lots ranging in size trom 22,000 square feet to over 2 acres overlooking Upper Otay Reservoir. Access to each home site is via a gated private street or common driveway off the Spine Road (see Figure 3). All new homes will be custom designed for each site. The area currently is planned for a wide range of architectural styles including American Colonial, Cape Cod, Craftsman, Monterey, European Cottage, European Estate, Italianate, Spanish Revival, Adobe Contemporary, Spanish Eclectic, Mission Italianate, and Gill Inspired. The amendment would also permit construction of homes in additional architectural styles, other than those described above, pursuant to Site Plan and Architectural Design Review by the Director of Planning and Building. ! Page No.2, Item:_ Meeting Date: 11/13/02 The EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines provide a background for guidance and inspiration in creating appropriate images for the character and scale of each style. The proposed amendment adds an American Contemporary architectural style to the Design Guidelines that may be used by individual homeowners building homes within WR-l. Since these lots are very large with spectacular views of Upper Otay Reservoir and the surrounding mountains, each lot will be individually designed by an architect according to the adopted guidelines. The American Contemporary architectural style features long soaring overhangs, earth bermed walls to minimize scale, round edges at corners, balance of natural and man made materials, large panes of glass for transparency and flat roofs and parapets. The intent is to provide a style that is anchored to the earth and should take advantage of all views and vistas. The American Contemporary plan is open and free forming, eliminating sharp intersections or barriers, and the interior flow of the home should reflect the exterior, with an emphasis on indoor-outdoor relationships. The combination of large lot sizes, variable lot design and orientation, and a consistent street landscape theme for Woods Drive will ensure that the variety of architectural styles permitted by this amendment will not detract from the ambience of the area. All custom homes in WR-l will be reviewed for consistency with the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines, architectural compatibility will be assured. CONCLUSION: The additional Contemporary architectural style, as well as the ability to propose other architectural styles than those listed in the Design Guidelines, will allow this exclusive residential neighborhood to be developed with spectacular architecture. Thus, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution. Attachment: A. Figures: 1. Locator 2. Eastlake III SPA Site Utilization Plan 3. Parcel WR.l B. Amended Eastlake III Design Guidelines C. Planning Commission Resolution D. Draft City Council Resolution E. Ownership Disclosure Form .;2. FIGURES ATTACHMENT A 3 /~r ~ , 0 ~I ~ 5, Z ::II ~ :1:1 ~ u 0 ~, ~ ~I Z _I g u,.-U-...........- I .~~..._- UPPER OTAY LAKES -~ -~- j==:-- ROJEC~:I- C=ffi lOCATION ~ ~ ~,:: CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C9 APPLICANT, THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC. SPA AMENDMENT PROJECT ADDRESS, WR-I. EAST LAKE WOODS Request: SPA Amendment to the Eastlake III Design SCAlE, FILE NUMBER: Guidelines to allow for contemporary style of NORTH No Scale PCM-03-11 V architecture within the WR-1 neighborhood. j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcm0311.cdr 10.22.02 ~ I \ , j "~ '--I RESIDENTIAL W.... 1'0-' Lend U.. Num"r WH., Single Family l 65.8 >.0 64 WH-2 Single Family l 340 17 59 WH-3 Single F amity l 40.6 1.9 77 WH-4 Single Family l 46.6 3.0 139 WH.. Single F am.ly l 292 2' 71 R_identYl Sub-total (Woods Essf) 2162 1.9 410 WH... Single Family eM 24,' 5.5 ,35 WH-7 Single Fam~y lM 18.3 6.7 122 R.., nlla' Sub-to"l (Woods West) 43.0 6.0 257 R_identlal Sub...total (Wood.): 259.2 2.6 "7 VI.g. YR.' Single Famay l 228 25 56 YR.2 Single Farm!y l 22.3 30 .. VR-3 Single Family l 36.9 J' 1>6 YR-4 Single Family lM 23.6 3.5 82 YR.. Single F amity lM 179 3.7 67 YR'" Single Family lM 265 .. 126 YR.7 Single Family lM 18.1 55 99 YR-8 Single Famoly lM 254 66 16. YR-9 $ingleIMulli-Family M 73 10.0 73 Multi-Family MH 77 150 116 Mul1i-Family MH 82 150 123 Multi-Family H 123 24.4 300 R_ld.nt/a' Sub-total (VIstas): 229.0 6.1 139< Sub-total R.aldtln".' ....2 '.2 2061 NON-REStOENTIAl Commercial. Reta.1 CR 122 Commen;.al- Tourisl CT 18.4 Fubhc ParK P ,35 Private Recreation l 17 Elementary School PQ 143 Jr. High School 'A 24.8 Fire Station PO 1.1 Comm. Purpose Fac PO 108 Open Space OS 1367 OS/School Parking as 11 Ma}or Circulation '" 255 Sub-tolal Non-R..!dentia' ~ PROJECT TOTAL 74$.3 2. 2061 Figure 2 PROJECT AREA ----,.-. ",,"-- :.0...""--___ -....i.= 4;,;.. r--n VR.5 .- f I-V I // ~, { I,..:.!, VR.6 '- VR-2 , \-p \ , \~ \ D r! (---- \) -'- " r, .._~ y' ~ z VR-8 I I I r VR-3 /~ '~ ul,'f<--r 2 SINGl.E F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST ..EASTLAKE III SPA .- A planned community by The EastLake Company (5'1'01) (10/21/02) 114.5-54 Parcel WR-1 .. * ... . * ---- ***** C:;& View Opportunily Neighborhood Entry Trail Access Point Public Vista Point Enhanced Elevations Edge Enhanced Slope Edge Cinti land Pbnning ~~..~~ m i ....... I 'L~ 4-2(1-01 Exhibit 5-7 DESIGN GUIDELINES EastLake III SPA Residential Design Guidelines 7 ATTACHMENTB ;/17?fCIfm&l7 _~ _ 6 ----~~~~~-~~"_.~ 11.4.5 Residential Design Guidelines: Single Family - EastLake Woods East This chapter builds on the design guidance provided in the previous chapter and addresses unique design features which are to be implemented in the EastLake Woods East development area. These features are intended to establish a unique visual neighborhood identity for this area. 11.4.5.1 Site Planning Tract subdivision construction (non-custom home) in single-family detached areas should be based upon the following criteria: A minimum of three housing plans should be provided each with a minimum of three facade treatments which vary entry, window type and treatment exterior materials and color. . Roof style, material and height should be varied. . Single-family detached residential lots and setbacks should encourage variety in the design, orientation and placement of homes, wherever practical. Front yard building setbacks should be varied to avoid a monotonous pattern of houses. . Side yard setbacks should be varied to create greater solar access, provide more useful private open space in side yards, and avoid monotonous pattern of houses. . The appropriateness of lots backing to other than major arterials will be reviewed with individual tract maps or site plans. When deemed appropriate, lots backing up to collector streets should be set back from the street right-of-way to pennit adequate landscaped buffers along the street frontage. See also Section 11.4.5.2.4, Plotting and Massing Criteria. 11.4.5.1.1 Building Placement Building placement on a lot is to a large extent controlled by the setbacks established for each of the residential land use districts within EastLake III. These standards are found in Chapter 11.3.3 of the EastLake JII PC District Regulations and are provided in the tables below. It should be stressed that the standards are based on prototypical lotting concepts and are not intended to constrain more creative solutions to spatial relationships (e.g., non-perpendicular lot lines, open space easements, etc.) that may be approved at the Tentative Map stage. (5,'1,'81) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-1 g SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST 11.4.5.2 Architectural Design Issues 11.4.5.2.1 General Considerations Purpose The purpose of these architectural guidelines is to provide specific design criteria and guidance for the development of the residential neighborhoods at The Woods at EastLake. They have been established to require a high level of product quality, to assure both variety and compatibility and to enhance the community's overall value. This document proposes adherence to a selected palette of architectural styles in keeping with the community and architectural content. The goal is to promote both visua] compatibility and variety utilizing historically authentic styles combined with modem technology and architectural innovation. Design Character The Woods at EastLake represents an opportunity to develop a unique community combining the best aspects of master-planned development with the best building types and styles oflong established neighborhoods. One key to the success of a community is the appropriate architectural vocabulary and theme. The palette of architectural styles selected for The Woods has evolved in Southern California since the turn of the century with historical examples well represented in the San Diego area. The Woods styles' inherent attractiveness, infonnality, and sense of elegance have enabled them to remain popular over a long period of time. Specifically, the styles: are visually compatible with each other; . possess general market appeal and community acceptance; . can be successfully expressed in a modem built home; . are capable of contemporary interpretation and variation; and, . have an historic background and precedence in the San Diego area. Design Intent The principal design criteria and architectural styles are intended to assist in the design, processing, and implementation of a high level of design direction and quality. The following items are required for concept designs: (5,'1,'01) 00/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-2 q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Selection and use of details, materials and colors that compliment the designed floor plans; and, . Interpretation of styles within the constraints of site planning, landscape design and architecture. The following items are to be avoided in concept design: Harsh contrasts of materials and/or colors Inappropriate use of scale . Poor selection and execution of details . Extreme interpretations of the characteristics for each style's authenticity Combining individual styles on one home Authenticity The design criteria are intended to avoid "stage-front" architecture. The application of detail and character of the architectural styles should be as authentic as possible. For inspiration and concepts, The Woods has looked to the region's own architectural past. The "Early San Diego" heritage is one that encompasses a lineage of architectural styles fluent trom the 1900's through the 1940's. San Diego's most attractive established neighborhoods are composed of these heritage homes. They consist of different, yet compatible styles which can be effectively integrated into a modem built home. Each style represents a sense of place in history and significant architectural statement. In order to maintain the character and significance of these styles, care should be taken to retrain from architectural gimmicks that sacrifice the integrity of their architectural heritage. The styles selected for The Woods are: . American Colonial Cape Cod Craftsman Monterey European Cottage European Estate Italianate . Spanish Revival Southwest Adobe Contemporary Spanish Eclectic Mission Italianate Gill-Inspired Contemporary Other Architectural Stvle* . . . . . . * Subiect to approval bv Design Review, of the architectural sMe. authenticity. and compatibility with surrounding architectural styles. Submittal of plans for an architectural style not listed above should be accompanied bv a statement of the proiect's desi!ln characteristics and requirements. (5:1/81) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-3 Ii) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST 11.4.5.2.2 Principal Design Criteria A. Architectural Design Considerations Intent Building mass will be designed to create a positive relationship with the specific plotting, and to appropriately reflect the architectural style. Exterior mass and fonn must be manipulated as necessary to improve the street scene by controlling the impact of the homes as they relate to the street, parkway, setbacks, adjacent lots, and comer plotting conditions. Criteria 1) Elevations shall be designed for continuity of massing, materials, colors and details on all elevations. 2) Front elevations shall be designed to emphasize entries, porches, or other resident use areas, and to de- emphasize garages. 3) Comer plotted units shall provide a significant single stol)' element adjacent to the exteJ"ior side yard that wraps from the front yard to the exposed comer lot (see single story elements, below). These massing elements should be considered in the process of plan and elevation design as they must be appropriate to the selected architectural styles. 4) Houses will be designed to create interesting street scenes. Setbacks wiH be varied on any given street to provide variety in the appearance ofthe street scene. Plans and elevations shaH be mixed to avoid repetition of identical facades and roof lines across from or adjacent to one another. B. Single Story Elements Intent Large areas of two-story wall surfaces will be reduced through the use of significant single story elements such as covered entries, porches, offsets, overhangs, recesses or other elements to provide visual relief on any given elevation. Criteria I) Where appropriate to style, use reduced height living areas to introduce the necessary transition elements for proper scale, undulation and variation in the front elevation. 2) Vary the heights and profiles of single story elements through diversity in scale and detail. 3) Fifty percent of all homes in each neighborhood must have a significant single story element unless inappropriate to style (as described in Architectural Styles section of this document). 4) The roof over the entry should be a distinct expression. Where consistent with the architectural style used, it should be on a different plane from the primary roof structure. C. Recessed Front Second Story Intent (5/1/01) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-4 (/ SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Unless it is inappropriate to the architectural style, the second story mass is encouraged to be recessed to improve the street scenc. ' Criteria 1) Although it is not the desired dominant fonn to be built at The Woods, the two-story box-like fonn is pennitted when appropriate to the architectural style. Styles that dictate such a box-like fonn include ltalianate, Monterey. Contemporary and American Colonial. 2) Where appropriate to style, the second story must be set back in relation to the porch, living and/or garage face below by a minimum of two feet. 3) If the fonn of a building is viewed as a series of interlocking masses rather than a box, a more desirable aesthetic solution will occur. D. Rear Articulation Intent Rear elevations are viewed in three ways; each of the conditions will be designed and detailed accordingly. I) First, as seen from the adjacent unit and rear yard where issues of second story privacy and scale shall be addressed. 2) Second, as quasi-public areas with visible details as seen from adjacent arterial roadways. 3) Third, as distant silhouettes viewed from adjacent neighborhoods and public areas. Criteria I) Homes backing onto collector streets are viewed from close range where details such as materials, color, window surrounds, and minor changes in wall planes and ridge lines are clearly evident. 2) Because of fIrst story screening by perimeter fencing and walls around homes, the second floor and roof framing shall have enhanced details and variations of ridgelines respectively. 3) Rows of homes seen from a distance or long rows along arterial roadways are generally perceived by their contrast against the background or skyline. Here the dominant impact is the overall shape of the building and roof lines instead of the surface articulation or materials. The following criteria apply: . Maximize the rear yard setback from the top of slope. . Articulate the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize the visual impact of repetitious flat planes. . Ridgelines and framing of homes shall be varied with particular attention given to avoiding repeating elements such as continuous gable-ends, similar building silhouettes and ridge heights. (5,'),'01) (10121102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-5 I:L SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST E. Secondary Units (Applicable only to designated lot sizes as provided in the P.C. Regulations) Intent To provide a variety of compatible housing choices integrated into the fabric of the neighborhood. Criteria Second units will be located on specific designated lots as mutually agreed to by the master developer and builder. Other non-designated builders who are interested in developing lots with secondary units may propose to do so upon approval by the master developer. 1) The secondary unit concept is allowed in neighborhoods as provided in the P.C. Regulations. Use of second units in these areas and any others is subject to approval and design review by the master developer as part of land sales agreements. 2) These units may not exceed the square footage allowed under SPA standards with their entry elearly identified as a secondary entry. 3) These units shall be integrated into the architectural design either above the garage or attached to the main house. 4) One parking bay (carport) or garage shall be provided for this unit - preferably integrated into the main garage. F. Porches Intent Porches provide opportunities for varied massing and street scene articulation. Criteria I) Porches will have a minimum depth of five feet' and typically occupy at least 50% of the primary facade (excluding garages). 2) Porch sty1es, including fenestration, stoop, roof fonn, supports, overhangs and re1atcd columns win be consistent with the architectural style of the home. 3) For homes without porches, a clearly articulated entry shall be provided. G. Roof Forms Intent Roof fonns are the dominant visual element in the strect scene of a residential neighborhood and provide consistency in character and appropriate scale to the residence. Criteria (5,']/01) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-6 /3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST I) All homes will have pitched roofs consistent with the architectural style used. 2) Provide roof framing that creates a variety of roof forms and heights along the street scene. 3) Within each neighborhood, each plan shall have a different major roof form (i.e., front-to-back, side-to-side, hip, etc.). 4) Rear elevation roof fOnTIS must vary for each plan to avoid repetitious elements such as continuous gable ends, similar building silhouettes and ridge heights. H. Wrapping Trim Intent Architectural treatment and trim is to be provided on all elevations. achieving 360 articulation. Criteria 1) If the front of a house has siding, then as a minimum, siding must be provided as an accent on the remaining sides of the house. It is the intent that side and rear elevations also reflect the elements and details of the architectural style. 2) Continue the details and character clements of the front elevation to the side elevation that is corner Jot plotted. 3) Provide design treatments and enhancements of trim and details at side and rear elevations when exposed to close public view (i.e. collector roads, and pedestrian paths). 4) Publicly visible side or rear elevations on collector streets shall reflect the same level of detail and articulation as the front elevation. I. Corner Lots Intent On comer lots, provide plans that wrap the street scene with enhanced architecture and that reposition the garage location and access from the typica1 interior lot condition. Criteria 1) Comer lot plans will ideally be different and at a minimum be modified from the interior Jot plan by incorporating wrapping architectural elements. 2) Encourage garages on corner lots to be made accessible from the side or rear as an option to the front. (See Plotting and Massing Criteria section for typical plotting examples.) II.4.5.2.3 Garage Treatments Intent (5/\"81) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-7 1'1 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST The home and the yard rather than the garage shall be the primary emphasis of the elevation as seen from the street. Each project will incorporate garage design techniques listed below to reduce the emphasis on the garage, and enhance the architecture of the street scene. Criteria I) At least two different garage configurations shall be incorporated for a three- plan project. Front facing ga,rages that are forward of the primary front fa<;ade arc limited to one plan per neighborhood. 2) At least three different garage configurations shall be incorporated for a four- plan project. Front facing garages that are forward of the primary front fa<;ade are limited to one plan per neighborhood. 3) Minimize the impact of garages facing the street by incorporating elements that add articulation and shadow and using different garage door patterns. 4) All garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12-inches or have garage door popout surrounds a minimum of 12-inches. A. Variable Garage Setbacks I) A varied setback is necessary along the street frontage. 2) Refrain from strict compliance to the minimum garage setback so as not to contribute to a repetitious and monotonous appearance along the street. 3) Where garages arc adjacent to one another at common property lines, a two-foot minimum difference in setbacks shall occur. 4) Typically, plans are to be reversed and plotted so that garages and entries are adjacent to each other to create an undulating sense of setback. Occasionally, this pattern should be broken so that it will not become overly repetitious or reflected by the massing directly across the street. B. Garage Layouts A variety of garage layouts is encouraged to emphasize pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and architecture forward. The following garage layouts describe a number of solutions with which to achieve that emphasis. 3-Car Garage - Front Facing Although this garage layout is pennitted, the intent in The Woods neighborhoods is to de-emphasize the visual impact of the garage. Thus, when the three car front facing garage layout is utilized, the following mitigation techniques must be included: At least one of the garage doors must be offset from the others. Provide a minimum offset of two feet between double and single garage clements. Shallow Recessed Garages Setting the garage back a minimum of five feet from the front of the house strives to reduce the overall visual mass of the garage. This garage type may be most common throughout the community but only in combination with the above required garage treatments. (5/1,'01) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES " .4.5-8 (') SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Mid-Lot or Deep Recessed Garages Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot strives to expose more architecture toward the street, and enhances the innovation and design of the plan. Swing-in Garage The use of swing-in garages varies the architectural massing and helps to break the continuous view of garage doors along the street. This garage design allows for a fonnal motorcourt entrance which differentiates this type of home from those on narrower lots. The reduction in the required garage setback helps to achieve greater variation in the street scene and the opportunity to enhance the front facing garage elevation, giving the appearance of a living area. Tandem Garage This garage layout de-emphasizes the third garage by concealing it behind a standard two car garage condition. The tandem space is located such that it may option into living space while maintaining only a view of the original two car garage to the street The two car garage is typically either shallow or deeply recessed into the lot so as to be incorporated into the architecture of the home. Split Garage This treatment dc-emphasizes the garage by reducing the length of the continuous door. Typically, a one car garage and a two car garage are split to provide a variation in the appearance, articulation, and flexibility of the home. The single car garage element in this split condition may option into living space that further enhances the street scene by replacing the garage door with an enhanced window treatment. Corner Lot Garage This garage treatment shall be derived out of a plan layout that converts from an interior lot plan to a comer lot plan. This plan is typically not changed in its overall layout; only the garage is repositioned. This allows for substantial street scene variation whiJe the front entry is accessed on one street and the garage is exposed on the side street. 11.4.5.2.4 Plotting and Massing Criteria Intent This section includes pJotting and massing concepts for specific lot sizes. The foHowing criteria summarizes the neighborhood standards that are vital for The Woods community to ensure a high quality living envirolU11ent. Criteria I) Minimize the visual impact of the garage 2) Give attention to composition of building mass 3) Step back second stories where appropriate to style 4) Incorporate single story clements into two story buildings (5/1,'01) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-9 !~ SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST 5) Vary setbacks at porches, living, and garage areas 6) Open visibility across corner lots through selective plan form and reduced building heights 7) Provide innovative plans and avoiding repetitious designs and footprints 8) Provide the appropriate architectural mix of primary vs. secondary styles, according to those selected for cach neighborhood (see following criteria for each parcel style palette). (5/1,'81) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-10 /7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Plotting and Massing Criteria Parcel WR-l 22,000+ S.F. Lots Architectural Stvles - Selection open for style mix American Colonial Cape Cod Craftsman Monterey European Cottage . European Estate Italianate Spanish Revival Adobe Contemporary Spanish Eclectic Mission Italianate Gill Inspired Contemporary Lot Specific Characteristics Allows garages to be down played with varying garage locations Optimizes architecture on the street frontage Use of curb separated sidewalk provides a tree lined traditional foreground for homes Product Characteristics Undulated bldg. massing & setback variations Comer lot plottable homes with garage on opposite street from entry Front door identity toward street Significant private usable rear yards Varied roof pitches and direction Stepped massing Massing Single story elements Yes 50% of plans (where style appropriate) Rear articulation Varied with one 3-foot minimum offset on 60% of plans (where appropriate to style) - must be provided at first and second stories. Side and Rear trim Std. Wrapping Articulation Std. (5/1/01) (10121102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-19 Iy SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Plotting and Massing Criteria Parcel WR-l 22,000+ S.F. Lots 1----- --l -~ " L 1- <::_, ~. ~.-- I I L ~ I I ___J , , ------ ~~._- --- Exhibit 5-5a Stepped one and two-story massing Front facing, deep-recessed garage Stepped one and two-story massing Swing-in garage at rear i--------l -l \-- . . . i\ !\:'\ w........;w :\ /. /\ i.....!,IU , . .......', , :', I I L I I _J ~ ~ I I __J I I L__ Exhibit 5-5b Full two-story massing Front facing, tandem garage Stepped one and two-story massing Front facing mid-recessed, tandem garage Notes: ]. These layouts are suggested alternatives only and arc not intended to be the mandated plotting layouts. 2. Rear setbacks can be reduced for layouts utilizing a rear garage or courtyard. Refer to PC Regulations. (5,'1181) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-20 ;e; SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST II.4.5.3.5 Architectural Styles General The arts and crafts vernacular of architecture, in combination with the diversity and heritage of styles will characterize the background and setting of The Woods. The choice of an acceptable style is meant to fulfill an authentic sense of place for the community. Therefore, it is important that the application of these styles be as authentic as possible to their historical character and avoid "stage-front" architecture. Much like attractive, established urban neighborhoods, the variety of architecture will add to the character and provide a higher degree of value for the community. These neighborhoods were built over time with architecture that is as appropriate today as it was yesterday. The Woods will not be designed with trends that merely respond to whims of the current marketplace, but with styles that have established themselves as classics over the years. The palette of styles permitted for The Woods at EastLake are: American Styles: American Colonial Cape Cod Craftsman Monterey Contemporary European Styles: European Cottage European Estate Italianate Spanish Revival San Diego Spanish Styles: Southwest Adobe Contemporary Spanish Eclectic Mission Italianate Gill-Inspired Intent The architectural design characteristics, requirements, and details will provide a background for guidance and inspiration in creating appropriate images for the character and scale of each style. These styles are identified within a special time in history and the unique combination of scale, character and detail associated with each shall be maintained. This goal will be achieved by having the community facilities, neighborhood centers, and residences embody authentically significant architectural massing, elements and details. This (5/1/01) (10/21/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-21 .;10 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST community architectural character will be continued through village entry monumentation, neighborhood entries, community walls, signs, lighting and landscape. The use of walls as a character element will add a sense of consistency that is carried throughout The Woods. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE MATRIX - The Woods at EastLake Architectural Styles Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel WR-1 WR-2 WR-3 WR-4 WR-5 American Styles American Colonial X X X Cape Cod X X X X Craftsman X X X X Monterey X X X X ContemDorarv X European Styles European Cottage X X X X European Estate X X Italian ate X X X Spanish Revival (Balboa Park) X X X San Diego Spanish Styles Southwest Adobe - Contemporary X Spanish Eclectic X X X X X Mission Italianate X X X X Gill-lnsDired X X X Architectural Style Selection Criteria Architectural styles shall vary between and within neighborhoods according to the selected style palette for each neighborhood (see Architectural Style Matrix above). Each builder shall provide a minimum of three plans per neighborhood (four preferred). Each plan shall have a minimum on different style elevations, demonstrating substantial differences in appearance. For 3-plan packages, no more than 35% of the units within a phase, tract, or (5/1/01) (10121/02) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-22 .;1.( SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST street segment shall have the same style. For 4-plan packages, no more than 30% of the units within a phase, tract, or street segment shall have the same style. The following section provides a brief description of each style and the design requirements necessary to execute each one with the appropriate level of authenticity. ,",.LVY~ """~,,' nc..."."..,~" ~"''''C"~. ,,,. AMERICAN COLONIAL - PARCELS WR-l, WR-2, WR-3 Historical Precedent This classic American style evolved from the first homes built in the New England colonies in the 17th century. Their beginnings were as small and unpretentious as the one story saltbox, favoring the cultures and traditions of the settlements. As living functions became more defined and prosperity increased, so did the need for additional space. Second stories with overhangs, dormers and gabled roof forms became favored solutions, later evolving into classic elements of the traditional style. With the event of Greek Revival styles in the 19th century, the rront dormer window evolved into a standard, prominent roof or entry element, raising the level of sophistication of this style. Later, wings of smaller continuous gable forms were added to each side of the house, becoming a lasting characteristic of traditional form. The details of this style further demonstrate the character of colonial revival influence. The use of brick veneer and/or wood siding with heavier trim above the doors and windows is typical. Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding this style. They are identified as: One and two story roof elements . Wrapped siding (5/1/01) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-23 ~J. SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST CONTEMPORARY - PARCEL WR-l Historical Precedent Contemporary. bv its mere description. should have little basis in the past. but rather be an accumulation of the latest in natural as well as man-made materials. Generally the plans are open and free-forming. The interiors reflect the exterior with an emphasis on indoor-outdoor relationships. Characteristics of this stvle often include creative use of glass with long. but gentle. overhangs. repetitive lines to initiate rhvthm and order. Detailing. particularlv in the connections of materials. reflects originalitv and the essence of custom design. The beautv of this stvle will be the designer's abilitv to create order using progressive geometry and unique wavs of incorporating distinct materials. A unique challenge for anv Contemporary design in WR-I will be to create a contemporary home that must be in harmony with other non- contemporary homes. Desif!n Characteristics The following design characteristics are common elements for the massing, scale. proportion and texture of the building: . Long soaring overhangs . Earth bermed walls to minimize scale Round edges at comers or precision sharp edges . Balance of natural and man-made materials . Flat or low roofs & parapits Large planes of glass for transparency Blending of rounded or curvilinear with sharp/square architectural features (5/V01) (10/21102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-31 d.-3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST Desi,m Requirements Roof Pitch: Flat to 6:12 parapets and play roof only when applicable Roof Materials: All latest roofing materials, including. cooper and earth toned metals. Overhangs: Should be long & soaring with emphasis on edge detail Siding: Wood in small percentages with natural stone claddings encouraged. Stucco Finishes: Sand or smooth Chimneys: Chimnevs shall be sculptured materials with artistic cap details. Balconies: Balconies are to be used to break-up masses in design, but shall flow with existing geometry. Window Treatments: Exterior roller shades or interior treatments should be concealed within soffit and hidden from view. Entry: The entry shall be clearly defined geometricallv. unique door materials are encouraged. Garage Doors: Generallv a gentle iuxtaposition of geometry. combining an artistic balance of horizontal and vertical elements. The long overhang shall be used to terminate soaring scales and facades. (5,'1/01) (10121102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 114.5-32 ~v SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST EASTLAKE WOODS EAST Parcel WR-l Design Issues Summary Description: This is the lowest density housing area in the EastLake Woods neighborhood. It is comprised of estate-sized lots greater than 20,000 sq. ft. in area overlooking Upper Otay Reservoir. Access to each home site is via a gated private street or common driveway off the Spine Road. All new homes are expected to be custom designed for each site. The slopes down from the development area toward Upper Otay Reservoir are a part ofthe Chula Vista Greenbelt. Maximizing long range views across the lake from development sites is a primary site design objective. Short range views up-slope from the public trail to private home sites should be screened with plant materials planted low enough on the slope to avoid interference with lake views. Another view issue will be the siting and design of homes, which will be prominently visible rrom the lake. The proposed lotting pattern within the parcel will provide a variety of exposures and setbacks from the top of slope. Land Use District: RLI Product: 22,000 sf Lot Estate Custom Homes Views: Views to and from Upper Otay Reservoir and Greenbelt trail Entry: Gated private street entries/common driveways from Spine Road Fencing: Off-site views; consistency with community theme fencing on edges Edges: Greenbelt along Upper Otay Reservoir Landscaping: Slopes adjoining Greenbelt (naturalized) Special Requirements: See Plotting and Massing Criteria summary (pg. 11.4.5-22) and Building Siting Plans in the PC District Regulations for special setbacks and fencing requirements. Design Review: Required (5/1/01) (10121102) DESIGN GUIDELINES 11.4.5-53 c2') SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - WOODS EAST 1--- ,...--._ !---' , ..E'ASTLAKE III SPA .- A planned community by The EastLake Company (5/1/01) (10121102) 11-4.5-54 '\ ;)& Parcel WR-1 ~ * .+. . * ---- ***** View Opportunity Neighborhood Entry Trail Access Point Public Vista Point Enhanced Elevations Edge Enhanced Slope Edge Cinti land Planning --c.o.....-m ri...Jll.. ...j 4-2Q.Q1 Exhibit 5-7 DESIGN GUIDELINES RESOLUTION NO. PCM-03-11 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY COVERED UNDER THE EASTLAKE III FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR#01-01) AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY, APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ALLOW AN AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY STYLE OF ARCIDTECTURE IN THE EASTLAKE WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD OF WR-I WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, a duly verified application was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by The EastLake Company ("Developer"), requesting approval of an amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines to add an American Contemporary architectural style house design to the permitted architectural styles permitted in the WR- neighborhood within EastLake Woods; and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented on Exhibit "A" and commonly known as EastLake III SPA Plan for the general description herein consists of approximately 65.8 acres planned for residential 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 environmental as defined under Section 15061 (General Rule Exemption) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and pursuant to Section 15061 Subsection (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental revIew IS necessary. 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 their recommending Resolution PCM-03-11 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 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 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 City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ';)7 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 13th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Russ Hall, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary ~~ DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY COVERED UNDER THE EASTLAKE III FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR#OI-OI) AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ALLOW AN AMERICAN CONTEMPORARY STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE EASTLAKE WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD OF WR-I. 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject matter of this amendment is diagranunatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as a portion of EastLake III Planned Community, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 65.8 acres located in the easterly portion of the City of Chula Vista, ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, a duly verified application was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by The EastLake Company ("Developer"), requesting approval of an amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines to add an American Contemporary style to the permitted architectural styles in the WR-I neighborhood within EastLake Woods; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements, including: I) a General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan and associated Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 2002-220 on July 17, 2001; and 2) Planned Community District Regulations approved by Ordinance No. 2839 on July 24,2001; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on November 13, 2002, and after staff presentation and public testimony, voted <--J to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and, E. City Council Record of Applications cJ<j ATiA0HI'V\f::/VT D Resolution Page 2 WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on _,2002, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. _ _' 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Project held on November 13,2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting thererrom are hereby incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding. III. PREVIOUS FSEIR#Ol-Ol REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FSEIR#OI-OI (EastLake III GPAlGDP/SPA Plan). IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA 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 environmental as defined under Section 1506 I (General Rule Exemption) of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 Subsection (b)(3) ofthe State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. 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 proposed project is exempt from ::So Resolution Page 3 Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 Subsection (b)(3), and no further environmental review is necessary, and as such reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista. VI. ADOPTION OF SPA AMENDMENT In light of the findings described herein, the amendment to the EastLake III SPA Design Guidelines, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved. VII. SPA AMENDMENT FINDINGS APPROVAL A. THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES (AS AMENDED), ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amended EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines, which are a component of the EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, is consistent with the adopted EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT AREAS. The EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines, as amended, which are a component of the EastLake III SPA Plan is consistent with the EastLake III Public Facilities Financing Plan and will therefore promote the orderly sequentialized development ofthe involved Planned Community District areas. C. THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The amended EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines, which are a component of the EastLake III SPA Plan, will proyide design and site deyelopment standards to guide the development of a functional and properly planned community. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS EST ABLISH- ED BY THIS TITLE. The amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines will enhance the "3r Resolution Page 4 architectural quality and variety of the EastLake III Planned Community, and would not adversely effect compliance with the SPA residential performance standards. E. IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines involves addition of architectural styles and does not involve a change in the type or intensity of residential development. Therefore, the amendment will not adversely effect the surrounding communities. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines does not involve the planned circulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element. G. ANY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL USES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S). The amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines does not involve creation of any new areas of residential development. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines will be highly compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Thus, these areas can be planned in substantial compatibility with the Project. VIII. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE III SPA PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES In light of the findings described herein, the City Council does hereby approve the amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan Design Guidelines as more fully set forth in Exhibit "B". IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be ]). Resolution Page 5 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 ofthis Resolution. x. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention ofthe 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 13 Appendix B THE cr ')F CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STf ...:MENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The fOllowing information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. '11i... s.sfk.kr. CPMp!NVIY/ L./.-( 0. G. 'P:a;,wt.-1. \ ~J Lmv.. pO<N\ / 2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3,(7, Ikwe../1 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No L- If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. ~;ll (j.J{INV\ htU ~ci,hb~ C~vy k"JcdG ~vJ (",fa v ~t<''';I{t (?MV C~t,' ./ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed mOJe than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No v' If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: (NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARZ / o,4~2-- , / Sign ur Gf contractor/applicant rO pe name of contractor/applicant * Person is defined as' "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. jreaternal organization, corporation. estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country. city municipality. district. or other political subdivision, or any other group or comhination acting as a unit. " ~'f A Tfi{c/-l ;ti f f\./T t.