HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/09/25
REVISED
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA
CALL TO ORDER: Hall
Castaneda
Cortes O'Neill Madrid McCann
Hom
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 14, 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:
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.
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:
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.
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2 -
September 25, 2002
2. 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.
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
3. Public Hearing:
PCM 03-09; Determination of development standards for
Eastlake III relating to exterior side yard setbacks and allowable
stories within a single family residence, The City of Chula
Vista.
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
4. Public Hearing:
PCA 02-04; Amendment to Chapters 19.04, Definitions, and
19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone of Chula Vista Municipal
Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The City of
Chula Vista.
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
5. 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.
Project Manager: Patricia Beard
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
1. Nomination of a Planning Commission representative to the General Plan Steering Committee.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista. in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA
CAll TO ORDER: Hall
Castaneda
Cortes
O'Neill Madrid McCann
Horn
ROll CAll/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 14, 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:
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,
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
2. 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.
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
3. Public Hearing:
PCM 03-09; Determination of development standards for
Eastlake III relating to exterior side yard setbacks and allowable
stories within a single family residence, The City of Chula
Vista.
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2-
September 25, 2002
4. Public Hearing:
PCA 02-04; Amendment to Chapters 19,04, Definitions, and
19,48, P-C Planned Community Zone of Chula Vista Municipal
Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The City of
Chula Vista.
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
5. 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.
Project Manager: Patricia Beard
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
1. Nomination of a Planning Commission representative to the General Plan Steering Committee.
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, August 14, 2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Madrid,
McCann, Hom
lim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Michael Walker, Associate Planner
Dave Hanson, Deputy City Attorney I
Staff Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (4-0-3-0) to approve Minutes of June 12, 2002 as submitted, Motion carried
with Commissioners McCann, Madrid and Hom abstaining.
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (4-0-3-0) to approve Minutes of July 10,2002 as submitted, Motion carried
with Commissioners Hall, Madrid and Hom abstaiing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA 02-05; Consideration of adoption of an ordinance amending the
Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding Chapter19.89 relating to the
location, design and construction of wireless communication
facilities.
Background: Kim VanderBie, Associate Planner reported that staff researched wireless
ordinances in other municipalities and conducted two workshops, which included
representatives from the wireless communication industry. The workshops provided a forum to
discuss issues such as needs, limitations and progress in the industry and to seek input for
potential guidelines and requirements in a future ordinance.
As a result of the workshops, there appeared to be a general consensus that the existing policy
'.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
August 14, 2002
should be streamlined to simplify and expedite processing applications and that it was very
important the performance and design standards not be compromised in the process.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with several aspects of the existing wireless policy, which
includes:
. A Conditional Use Permit is required for all wireless facilities
. Wireless communication facilities are allowed in any zone, but the location of a facility may
be denied if it would be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare.
. All proposed wireless communications facilities are noticed
. Stealth facilities may be processed by the City's Zoning Administrator
The proposed ordinance streamlines the existing wireless policy by also allowing the following to
be processed administratively by the City's Zoning Administrator:
. Stealth facilities (*) that do not exceed the maximum building height allowed in a particular
zone, and a roof-mounted facility that is screened behind a solid material on all four sides
and does not exceed the maximum height of the zone.
(*) Stealth facility - defined in the proposed ordinance as any wireless telecommunications
facilities that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment and is visually
unobtrusive i.e. architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, far;ade-mounted
antennas painted and treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing
building thereby concealing the antenna or artificial trees such as monopalms and
monopmes
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 02-05
recommending that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amending the Chula Vista
Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89, Wireless Communications Facilities.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Castaneda stated that since federal law precludes local jurisdictions from
regulating health matters related to wireless facilities, he asked for further clarification as to what
other health conditions would apply under the language which states "Wireless facilities are
allowed in any zone, butthe location of a facility may be denied if it would be detrimental to the
public's health, safety or welfare."
Ms. Vander Bie responded that issues relating to traffic, noise or those that are visually obtrusive
could fall under that category and would be consistent with the General Plan, which requires that
issues such as safety, health and welfare be taken into consideration.
Cmr. Castaneda asked, if the CUP were to be approved administratively, would there still be
some kind of notice sent to the area residents and what would be the determinant factor that
would compel staff to forward it to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
August 14, 2002
Ms. Vander Bie clarified that all wireless facilities are noticed to the surrounding residents,
however, if there is any kind of opposition (big or small) expressed by the residents, then the item
would automatically come before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Hall stated that in the past when the Commission considered facilities that were
located on City property, specifically park facilities, their recommendation has been to designate
the revenues generated from the leasing of City property to go to the facility that is hosting it,
therefore, he asked if this ordinance would be the appropriate venue to include such language or
provIsion.
lim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director responded that the ordinance does not address the
Commission's recommendation, however, a process relating to usage of City-owned property will
be developed in conjunction with the Special Operations Manager in the City Manager's office
which, would be a more appropriate venue to address this issue.
Furthermore, before Planning staff begins review of any project that is proposed to be located on
City property, prior review and sign-off has to first be given from the Parks Department and/or
from the Special Operations Manager who deals with financial negotiations and leasing of City-
owned property.
Commissioner Cortes stated that since it appears there will be a substantial amount of facilities
that will be approved administratively, he would like to requestthat staff provide the Commission
with a periodic update report as to the location, description and number of facilities that have
been approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Madrid stated she didn't read any language regarding the term of the CUP or
language which would allow the City leverage in requiring the carriers to upgrade the facility
should there be substantial technological changes.
Ms. Vander Bie responded that there is a standard Condition of Approval which says that the
CUP is good for five years provided they are in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and
at the end of the term, they are eligible for a renewal. There is also a standard condition which
addresses enhancements to the facilities should there be technological changes.
John Schmitz, Principal Planner, added that at such time when a CUP expires and the applicant
desires to renew the permit, an evaluation of the facility would be conducted utilizing existing
standards.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he has a different philosophical approach and questioned why City
property should be treated differently, in that wireless facilities being proposed on public
property can be processed administratively, whereas, only stealth ones on private property are
eligible for an administrative approval. In his opinion, the present public hearing process through
the Planning Commission is a more accessible venue to the citizens if they have a concern with a
facility going into a park.
Cmr. O'Neill further stated that he believes that all facilities proposed in the R-l zone (stealth or
otherwise) should come before the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
August 14, 2002
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he agrees with the following recommendations offered by
Chair O'Neill and Commissioner Cortes:
. To provide residents a more accessible venue in which to voice their concerns by having the
Commission continue to review the more sensitive sites, i.e. those in the R-l zone and park
facilities.
. that staff provide the Commission with a yearly report apprizing them on the number of
facilities that were processed.
. That the report identify the aging of the CUP's, including how many sites are out of service,
and what measures the City is using to ensure that they are dismantled; and
. That a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council expressing the Commission's desire
that any revenues generated by the leasing of parks or recreational facilities be redirected
back into the hosting facility or to the Parks & Recreation Department budget.
Commissioner McCann stated that he is supportive of staff's recommendations and sees the need
to grant staff more discretionary approval in order to streamline the process, however, he is also
supportive of the concerns and recommendations made by other commissioners and was
wondering if it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to allow staff time to
incorporate the Commission's recommendations and further fine-tune the ordinance proposal.
Commissioner O'Neill summarized his recommendations as follows:
. That any proposal in the R-l zone come before the Planning Commission;
. Depending on the impact of a fa~ade-mounted facility on an existing building that
underwent Design Review approval, such facility shall also be subject to Design Review
approval.
. That there be homogeneous language between what happens on public property and any
other site. There ought not to be any need to treat what happens on public property any
differently in terms of the ordinance and then the process.
MSC (Castaneda/McCann) (7-0) that this item be continued in order to allow staff time to
incorporate the Commission's concerns and recommendations, which are:
. That any proposal located in the R-1 zone and public facilities be subject to review by
the Planning Commission;
. That depending on the impact of a fac;ade-mounted facility on a building that
underwent DRC approval, the proposal shall also be subject to Design Review.
. That a recommendation be forwarded to City Council recommending that revenues
generated from leasing of public parks or recreation facilities be channeled back into
the hosting facility or the Parks and Recreation budget; and
. That staff's report incorporate language reflecting the Commission's desire to have an
annual report provided to them.
Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
August 14, 2002
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 02-20; Conditional Use Permit proposal for a 1.196 sf granny flat
as an accessory second unit in a Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone.
The unit will be situated behind an existing single family dwelling
located at 437 Elm Street.
Background: Michael Walker, Associate Planner reported the 1,196 sf granny flat is proposed to
be built on a 11,415 sf lot that contains an existing 1,050 sf single family dwelling, a 400 sf
detached garage and a 400sf accessory structure. The unit would be located behind the existing
dwelling consisting of 2 bedrooms, a den, living room and 2 bathroom designed in accordance
with ADA requirements.
The proposed accessory second un it has been designed to meet the State criteria and local
zoning ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 02-40 based on
findings and conditions contained therein for an accessory second unit, per State
Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(l) for cities without adopted second unit
ordinances.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill stated that in the past, it has been staff's recommendation and the
Commission's desire to have the accessory unit and the primary dwelling match or be as
architecturally compatible as possible, and was wondering why this is not the case for this
proposal. He further recommends that there be single-metering on the property.
Mr. Walker responded that the construction material for the accessory unit is from a manufacturer
and was pre-assembled in sections and brought to the site and erected. He believes the applicant
is attempting to find building material to match the existing dwelling, but is encountering some
difficulty, and stated that perhaps the applicant can elaborate further on his progress.
Commissioner Madrid stated that her vast experience in rental and housing units has been that
single-metering by no means accomplishes the desired effect in deterring the units from
becoming rentals. She further stated that because this unit will be built to ADA specifications,
she is inclined to allow the double metering in order the avoid creating a hardship on the present
occupants.
Commissioner McCann stated that for the sake of consistency and fairness, all secondary units
that the Commission has reviewed in the past, have been required to maintain a single meter.
Since there will be disabled individuals occupying both dwellings, he would be concerned that
ADA requirements to make reasonable accommodations would somehow be overridden by
denying the applicant's request to allow double-metering.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that the meter issue can be resolved by installing a separate private
meter, and in fact, would be a substantial savings over the cost of installing a new meter, which
could be anywhere from four to five thousand dollars.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
August 14, 2002
Public Hearing Opened 7:50
Lorraine Marticke, 437 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, applicant, stated that the reason they are
requesting separate metering is because both units will eventually be occupied by disabled
individuals and the electric costs for heating and operating of all of the equipment are
substantially more than the average household.
Eldon Smith, 436 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, neighbor, stated that the lot in question is gigantic
and would cost a fortune to landscape and irrigate it, therefore, all that has been there throughout
the years is a weed patch. He is in support of this project and urged the Commission to approve
it.
Mr. Smith indicated that they are working on obtaining the same fa<;:ade for the secondary unitto
match the front unit and have encountered difficultly in obtaining one because they don't
manufacture it any longer, but will continue to look for something similar. He further stated that
the entire unit is intended to be maintenance-free and they will be working with the designer to
ensure that the roof material is of a quality material and appearance.
Public Hearing Closed 8:00
MSC (Hail/McCann) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 02-20 based on
the findings and conditions contained therein for an accessory second unit, per State
Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(1) for cities without adopted second unit
ordinances, with the additional following conditions:
. That both dwellings be architecturally compatible and/or match the primary single-
family dwelling; and
. That a single meter be maintained on the property.
Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 02-04; Request to amend the City of Chula Vista Zoning Map by
rezoning 1.62 acres of land in Otay Ranch Vilage Two from the Planned
Community (PC) Zone to Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone for the purpose
of constructing a Fire Station (Fire Station No.7).
Background: Rich Whipple, Associate Planner gave a brief overview of the proposal and stated
that the amendment to the Zoning Map would allow the construction of the 12,000 sf fire station
on 1.62 acres of land. The proposed rezoning of the Fire Station No.7 site in Village Two of
Otay Ranch would accomplish the objective of delivering a needed fire station facility to meet
the needs of the City Fire Department Master Plan and maintain thresholds required in the City's
Growth Management Ordinance, therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning
application.
Public Hearing Opened and Closed 8:15.
MSC (McCann/Horn) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution NO PCZ 02-04
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
August 14, 2002
recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS 02-33) and adopt an Ordinance amending the City's
Zoning Map established by Chapter 19, Section 19.18.010 of the chula Vista Municipal Code
by rezoning 1,62 acres of land in Otay Ranch Village Two from the Planning Community (PC)
Zone to Public/Quasi-Public (P-Q) Zone. Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
1. Update on Otav Ranch Resource Management Plan Amendment
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building reported that the Otay Ranch Resource Management
Plan Amendment went before the City of San Diego Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors. As new development occurs in Otay Ranch, developers are required to convey a
certain number of acres of open space for every acre that's developed, which at build-out will end
up being an approximately 11,000 acre preserve that would be jointly managed and maintained by
the City and the County. Over the last 3 to 4 years approximately 1 ADO acres of open space have
been conveyed through irrevocable offers of dedication that were approved by both City and
County staff.
Most recently, the County Planning Commission held a hearing and voted to turn down the
amendment because they felt that the habitat areas that were being added were of lesser value than
the ones that were in the original conveyance area and they also had been led to believe that the
City of San Diego Planning Commission had been led without advice or consideration from the
County. It was referred to the County Board of Supervisors after the Planning Commission denied
it and it was explained that the property that was proposed to be added did have the same value
and that city and county staff had been consulted throughout the process.
2. Nomination of new Planning Commission Chair for FY 02-03
MSC (O'Neill/McCann) to nominate Commissioner Hall as Chair of the Planning Commission and
Commissioner Castaneda as Vice Chair for FY 02-03, Motion carried,
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director reported that Council recently authorized the establishment
of a Historic Advisory Committee. As part of the make-up of this committee, a representative from
various Commissions would be desired, therefore, for the Commission's consideration, the nomination
of representative will be placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Additionally, a
representative to GMOC will also be selected.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:25 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 2002.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:---1
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit (PCC-02-32) 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.
The Seven-Eleven corporation ( applicant) is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to add a
gasoline service station component to an existing Seven-Eleven (4300 Main Street). The proposed
service station will be built on a vacant lot (4290 Main Street) adjacent to the west. This lot will be
leased from the adjacent property owner, who has granted permission to construct the project on the
property. According to the applicant, the service station will only provide fuel-dispensing service to
cars and light commercial vehicles at this time and will not include diesel fuel. There is a high
volume of diesel truck traffic through the Main Street corridor, and with the availability of land
remaining on this parcel additional diesel fuel pumps could be accommodated in the future.
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Division has reviewed
the proposal and found that the project is a Class 1 exemption for additions or alterations to existing
facilities (Section 15301).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee approved
the design of the project at their September 16, 2002 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the attached ResolutionDRC-
02-3 5/PCC-02-32 approving the findings and conditions ofthe Design Review Committee and subject
to the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft Planning Commission resolution.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site is a flat vacant lot located adjacent to the existing convenience store (Seven-Eleven)
on Main Street, near Melrose Avenue. A natural drainage course occurs on the westerly slope that is
adjacent to the vacant lot, which is adjacent to edge of the Montgomery Specific Plan area annexation
and the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
There are residential and commercial developments surrounding the two properties, such as the
condominiums complexes to the south and west, apartments and condominiums to the north, and a
shopping center to the east. The General Plan designates the site as Retail Commercial. The Zoning
is Neighborhood Commercial with a Precise Plan modifYing district overlay. The current surrounding
land use designations, zoning and existing land uses are:
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
General Plan Land Use Designation
East:
Retail Commercia/
Zoning: Existing Land Use:
RiP7 Vacant Lots
R3P12 Apartments
R3P12 Condominiums
R3G Condominiums
R-2 Condominiums
CNP Shopping Center
CNP Seven-Eleven
North:
Single Fami/y Residential
Medium-High Residentia/
Medium-High Residentia/
South:
Medium-High Residential
West:
Medium-High Residential
Site:
Retail Commercial
3. Proposal
The applicant proposes to construct a 26-ft. x 78-ft. canopy covering three gas dispensers each
providing three grades of gasoline on both sides, for a total of six drive-up aisles. The existing Seven-
Eleven monument sign will be removed in favor of a single monument sign that incorporates the
Seven-Eleven logo and the Citgo logo above the fuel signboard in the same location. A new 15-ft.
landscape buffer in addition to 5-ft. of right-of-way, for a total of 20-ft. of landscaping will be
provided adjacent to the fuel canopy between a proposed service station driveway and the existing
Seven-Eleven driveway along Main Street.
With regard to overall development of the leased property, less than half of the parcel is going to be
developed at this time. Approximately I 15-ft. of the Main Street frontage will be improved for
purposes of the service station. The remaining 135-ft. portion will be landscaped with groundcover,
including shrubbery along the entire Main Street frontage and edge of pavement for the service
station.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to add a gasoline service station
component to an existing Seven-Eleven (4300 Main Street). The proposed service station will be
built on a vacant lot (4290 Main Street) adjacent to the west. This lot will be leased from the
adjacent property owner, who has granted permission to construct the project on the property.
According to the applicant, the service station will only provide fuel-dispensing service to cars and
light commercial vehicles at this time and will not include diesel fuel. There is a high volume of
diesel truck traffic through the Main Street corridor, and with the availability ofland remaining on this
parcel additional diesel fuel pumps could be accommodated in the future.
.,)..
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
ANALYSIS:
Zoning:
As shown in the table, the Neighborhood Commercial with a Precise Plan zoning (CNP) requires:
STANDARDS
Front Building Setback:
Exterior Side Setback:
Interior Side Setback:
Rear yard setback:
Maximum Building Height:
Parking Spaces:
REQUIRED
15 feet
o feet
o feet
]5 feet
3 5 feet
I 8 spaces
PROPOSED
15 feet
105 feet
45 feet
60 feet
18 feet
1 8 spaces
Site Plan:
The site plan shows a circulation system that would encourage vehicles to enter the 40-ft. wide
westerly driveway to approach the fuel pump island. The existing Main Street and Melrose Avenue
30-ft. driveways will continue to serve the convenience store as well as the service station for both
ingress and egress traffic. The overall layout and location of parking spaces in relation to the pump
island canopy and convenient store provides sufficient turning radius and movement throughout the
site.
Parking:
With regards to parking spaces, the pump island canopy covers an area of 2, 028-sq. ft. (26- ft. x 78-
ft.), and the code requires one parking space for every 400-sq. ft. of gross floor area for automobile
service areas, or 5 parking spaces. The convenience store requires one parking space for every 200-
sq. ft. of floor space, and there is 2600-sq. ft. of floor area within the Seven-Eleven, necessitating 13
parking spaces. In combination with the spaces required for the pump island canopy, a total of 18
parking spaces are needed and provided on the site.
Landscaping;
The applicant has agreed to provide a revised conceptual landscape plan in conformance with the
Landscape Planner's comments. The current landscaping is located primarily along the edges of the
properties. There are large landscape buffers, between 15 and 20-ft. in depth along the Main Street
and Melrose Avenue front and exterior setbacks. There also exists landscaping in rront and on both
sides of the convenience store building.
The proposed addition of the pump island canopy will add another 20-ft. landscape buffer along Main
Street. In addition, a 3-ft. landscape planter along the rear property line in front of the masonry
block-zoning wall is proposed. There will also be landscaped planters on both sides of the trash
enclosure. The undeveloped portion of the property will also be landscaped with shrubs along the
edge of pavement and along the entire frontage of Main Street, with a hydro-seed grass groundcover
that will subsist from the permanent irrigation for the shrubbery inside the vacant undeveloped
portion. These landscape elements provide the minimum 10 percent landscape coverage required for
parking areas, and exceed the overall minimum 15 percent landscaping for the entire site.
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
Architecture/Signage:
The architecture of the pump island will consist ofa flat roof 18-ft. high canopy, utilizing matching
colors and materials, in conformance with the requirement that accessory structures be designed to be
architecturally compatible with the main building, in this case the convenience store. The color
scheme consists of green, orange, and red striping along the all four elevations of the canopy, with the
small icon orange logo and blue signage indicating Citgo on all four sides. The canopy striping colors
match the existing striping colors and corporate logo of Seven-Eleven.
.service Stations:
Section 19.58.280 of the "Uses" section of the Zoning Ordinance provides that service stations are
subject to the following requirements and conditions. The following provisions would be applicable
to this proposal:
A. They are clearly required by public convenience;
B. They will not cause traffic hazards or undue congestion;
C. They should be located only on property abutting the intersection of major or collector streets
or combination thereof, or within shopping centers as part of an approved site plan, except
that they shall be limited to the periphery of the central business area. They may be located
on an interior lot if they do not disrupt the continuity of retail store frontage for pedestrians;
D. They will not be a nuisance to residences or other surrounding uses;
E. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the city except that a
6-ft. minimum planter area in front of the pump islands and not closer than three feet to any
driveway shall be required The pump islands shall be located no closer than 12-ft. from the
planter;
F. Architectural approval subject to the conditions of Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480
shall be obtained;
The proposed project must meet or exceed the requirements of this section of the Zoning Code, and a
condition of approval is recommended requiring such compliance.
With regards to Section A, the public convenience is being served, because there is potentially a need
for more discount gasoline service competition within the market area. There are two other service
stations within the vicinity, including an Arco station within 500-ft. that caters primarily to large
freight trucks and recently added a separate diesel fuel station area, and there is also a Shell station
just east of the 1-805 that also provides diesel fuel to large trucks.
According to the applicant, this station will be primarily a convenience for Seven-Eleven customers,
and further, no diesel fuel for large trucks will be dispensed here. The next nearest service station to
the west is the recently built Mobil, which is over a mile away, and which provides diesel fuel and
caters primarily to large trucks.
Cf
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
With regards to Section B, the addition of the service station will cause no traffic hazards or undue
congestion. As discussed previously, the service station will provide a total of six drive-up aisles to
three fuel pumps under one single pump island for vehicular traffic only, and will not accommodate
large diesel trucks since no diesel fuel is being offered
The entry driveway will be 40-ft. wide and there is ample queuing between the driveway and the
pump island canopy for car stacking. Vehicles will exit the existing Main Street driveway or may exit
onto Melrose Avenue in front of the Seven-Eleven convenience store.
With regards to Section C, the property is abutting the intersection of a major (Main Street) and
collector (Melrose Avenue).
With regards to Section D, the proposal will not be a nuisance to residences or other surrounding
uses. A 6-ft. concrete masonry unit decorative block-zoning wall will be erected along the rear
property line the full length of the service station portion that is adjacent to a residential use
(condominiums).
With regards to Section E, the site will be landscaped in accordance with the landscape manual of the
City, as discussed further under the sub-heading oflandscaping in this analysis section. As discussed
previously, a 15-ft. landscape buffer along with 5-ft. of right-of-way, for a total of20-ft. oflandscape
planter area in front of the pump island is being provided, exceeding the 6-ft. requirement. A
minimum 12-ft between the pump island and the landscape planter area is also being provided
With regards to Section F, the site plan and architectural approval referenced within Sections
] 9.14.420 through 19.14.480 to be provided by the Zoning Administrator is being provided for by the
Design Review Committee through the Precise Plan overlay zoning designation that provides that the
site plan and architectural shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee for
certain development projects
No provisions are provided for other auto related services such as auto repair or auto detailing,
outside temporary canopies or indoor enclosed service buildings. With the exception of the air and
water kiosk to be located in the southwest corner of the developed area, no automotive services will
be allowed beyond the fuel service pump island use. ]n addition, the Seven-Eleven convenience store
contains a public restroom facility for customers utilizing the Citgo Service Station fuel pump island.
Design Review Committee recommendation:
At the Design Review Committee (DRC) public hearing, concerns were raised by neighbors about the
proximity of the service station to the adjacent condominiums.
As a result, the DRC is recommending that the decorative concrete masonry block zoning 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. A chain-link fence would also be
provided along the west side ofthe undeveloped vacant lot at the top of slope to prevent trespassing.
s-
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
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 has reviewed this proposal and believes
there may be an alternative, so that the condominiums are adequately screened and the existing
landscaping and chain-link fencing immediately adjacent to the condominium complex can remain on
the property line.
The alternative would be for a 6-ft. high chain-link fence with landscaping or a solid wood fence be
located along the top of slope, rather than on the actual southerly property line between the vacant lot
and the condominium properties. This would eliminate the need to require additional grading beyond
the service station proposal, which does require fill soil and a retaining wall in order install a new
concrete masonry wall along the property line where gasoline service station parking and landscaping
is proposed.
The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission has the authority to waive a zoning wall or
fence requirement if it is found that the adjacent areas would be sufficiently screened and protected
without said wall or fence (Section 19.58.360).
CONCLUSION:
The proposed service station pump island canopy is a complimentary feature to add to the existing
convenience store use, and will provide the further development and/or landscaping to an existing
underutilized/vacant parcel ofland along Main Street, therefore staff recommends approval of the
project based on the findings and conditions as noted in the draft Planning Commission resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Locator Map
2. Notice of Decision DRC-02-35 (Design Review Committee)
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
4. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement
5. Site/Landscape PlanIFloor Plans/Elevations
J:IPLANNINCIHAROLDIPCC-02-32REPORT.DOC
o
fJTD
CJI))
GID
GJ:D
o
lJTDO
COUNTY
PUBLIC
HOUSING
!!: WOODSIDE PLAZA GAS
\!! SHOPPING CENTER STATION
o ~ HOTEL
tsJQ9f+j~ ffi ; ~ IT WOODSI~E ~
~ ~ ~ IT VILLAGE ~
EB EfJ c: ffi EB B3 EE
EaEE EE
-
,
co
o
c.n
'TI
;0
m
m
~
'<
MAIN STREET
03
EE EE EE
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT E EN PROJECr OESCRIPTlON:
C) APPLICAIfr. 7 - LEV , INC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT
AODRESS: 4300 MAIN STREET Request: Proposed addition of gasoline station
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: 7 at the 7 - Eleven retail store.
NORTH No Scale PCC-02-32 Related Case: DRC-02-35. I
h:\home\planmng\DAlllocators\PCC0232.cdr 01/16/02
ATTACHMENT "A"
~(f?-
~~
~~~
~ -..,.....
Design Review Committee
en" OF
CHUIA VISTA
NOTICE OF DECISION
On DRC-02-35
Notice is hereby given that the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered
DRC-02-35, a Design Review Permit to add a gasoline service station adjacent to an existing
convenience store.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project is a Class 1
categorical exemption from environmental review per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ___
(minor additions to existing facilities or structures) with regards to the effects of the proposal on
the environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Thus, no further
environmental review is necessary. The Design Review Committee approved said request based
upon the following findings of facts:
1. That the proposed renovations are consistent with the development regulations of the
CNP [Neighborhood Commercial with a Precise Plan modifying District] Zone, and the
Environmental Review.
The proposed development conforms to the zoning restrictions and development standards
and is consistent with the regulations of the CNP zone. The gasoline service station is an
acceptable feature to add adjacent to the convenience store. In addition, the addition of the
service station has been considered in the environmental review and determined to be a less
than significant impact to the site and general vicinity.
2. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
The proposed development, including the pump island canopy, additional parking and
landscaping will be consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying the
commercial design guidelines found in the Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual. A new landscaping buffer will be provided adjacent to the fuel pump islands and
adjacent to a decorative block wall along the rear property line, softening or screening views
from the adjacent residential condominiums and Main Street.
The Design Review Committee approves the design of the proposed addition and recommends
Planning Commission approval of the draft Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
including the following modification to the conditions of approval as presented to them:
l-E: A fencing plan shall be provided indicating all perimeter fencing to be provided,
including a new 6-ft. high decorative block wall along the southern boundary of
g
the property from the convenience store building to the top of the slope. A
landscape vine treatment shall be incorporated along the new 6-ft. high
decorative block wall, A chain-link fence will be installed near the western
property line along the top of the slope to enclose the undeveloped portion. The
fencing plan shall be incorporated with the planting and irrigation plans and
submitted for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to the
issuance of building permit.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 16th day of September, 2002, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
MORLON, ARIAZA, AGUILAR, ALBERDI, MESTLER
NOES:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ATTEST:
~~'~"'L ~~~
Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary
J :\PLANNINGIHAROLDlREsOLUTIONSIDRC-02-35DECISION.IJOC
c:r
2
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-02-32
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PCC-02-32 TO ADD A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 3, 200] by the Seven-Eleven, Inc.
"(Applicant);" and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests permission to add a gasoline service station (Citgo)
adjacent to the existing convenience store (7-Eleven) at 4300 Main Street by way of a
conditional use permit if approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a
Class 1 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301 --- minor
additions to existing facilities or structures) with regards to the effects of the proposal on the
environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee considered this matter on September 16th
2002 and approved the design and forwarded a recommendation of approval, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for the public hearing for said
conditional use permit and notice of said hearings, 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-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September
25t!' 2002 6:00 p.rn. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony
presented at both public hearings with respect to subject application.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista made the following
findings, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits
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 service station use is desirable and provides a facility that will contribute to
the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The public convenience is
(0
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 2
being served, because there is a need for more discount gasoline service competition within
the market area, according to the operational profile.
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 proposed gasoline service station will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity. The addition of the service station will cause no traffic hazards
or undue congestion. The service station will provide a total of six drive-up aisles to three
fuel pumps under one single pump island for vehicular traffic only, and will not
accommodate large diesel trucks since no diesel fuel is being offered. In addition, the
proposal will not be a nuisance to the adjacent residences or other surrounding uses. A 6-ft.
concrete masonry unit decorative block-zoning wall will be erected along the rear property
line the full length of the service station portion that is adjacent to a residential use
(condominiums).
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use.
The Zoning Code requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial within a Precise Plan
modifying district (CNP) Zone and for automobile service stations, as well as and the
Municipal Code requirements and the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit
will ensure compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the
final issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the facility on the site for the proposed
project.
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 for a gasoline service station is in compliance with the General
Plan land use designation of Retail Commercial and will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use
Permit PCC-02-32 subject to the following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property
owners shall:
1. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of
the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the
following requirements:
{(
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 3
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
A. Provide revised plans and elevations incorporating all conditions of approval. Relocate
the air and water dispensers along the edge of pavement or under the fuel pump island
canopy to ensure' the availability of 18 parking spaces. The revised plans and elevations
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior
to issuance of building permit.
B. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The
planting and irrigation plans shall be revised to show the elimination of the wheel stops
for the parking adjacent to the rear property line to increase the depth of the planter area,
utilizing the concrete curb as the wheel stop. The hedge plantings along the Main Street
frontage and transition edge of pavement to the undeveloped portion of the lot shall be on
the automatic irrigation system. All plantings excluding the hydro-seed mix turf
groundcover shall be on the permanent irrigation system. The revised planting and
irrigation plans shall be in conformance with the approved conceptual landscape plan and
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance of
building permit.
C. A water management plan shall be required in conjunction with the conceptual landscape
plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance of building
permit.
D. A separate building permit shall be required for the monument sign and all pump island
canopy signage, and shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval
prior to the issuance of the building permit. for the pump islands and canopy.
E. A fencing plan shall be provided indicating all perimeter fencing to be provided,
including a new 6-ft. high decorative block wall along the southern boundary of the
property from the convenience store building to the top of the slope. A landscape vine
treatment shall be incorporated along the new 6-ft. high decorative block wall. A chain-
link fence will be installed near the western property line along the top of the slope to
enclose the undeveloped portion. The fencing plan shall be incorporated with the
planting and irrigation plans and submitted for review and approval by the Landscape
Planner prior to the issuance of building permit.
F. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section
17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. A lighting plan shall be provided that includes details
showing that the proposed lighting shall be shielded to remove any glare from adjacent
properties, and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Director.
G. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This
shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall
conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding
graffiti control.
IJ...
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 4
H. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Conditional Use
Permit. Building Plans shall comply with 1998 Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and
National Electrical Code article 500. Building shall comply with handicapped
accessibility requirements and Title 24 energy requirements.
Environmental Section (Mitigation Monitoring) Conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
(NPDES) Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01 and Best Management Practices (BMP)
for gasoline service stations requirements to be implemented during and after
construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in downstream storm drain system.
J. Catch basin filters shall be installed to prevent trash and silt from entering the storm drain
system.
K Temporary de-silting and erosion control devices shall be installed to control short-term
erosion. These measures shall be reflected within the grading improvement plans.
Resource Recycling and Consen'ation Coordinator Conditions:
L. Commercial properties must have trash enclosures, bins, or carts that meet design
specifications. The locations and orientation of storage bins and dumpsters must be pre-
approved by the City franchise trash hauling company. Provide sufficient space for
designated recyclables. A shared paper/cardboard bin, along with food and beverage
container cart with other storage may be permitted. A commercial trash enclosure large
enough for solid waste, mixed paper, and a cart for food and beverage containers must be
provided to meet the minimum 50 percent recycling requirement. Contact the City
Conservation Coordinator at 691-5122.
Fire Department Conditions
M. Obtain the necessary permits from the Fire Department for the installation of all above
and belowground tanks. An emergency shut off valve is required within 100-ft of the
pumps, but not less than 20-ft. Fire hydrants must be available within 300-ft., or a fire
hydrant will be required. A one-way check valve between the post indicator valve and
the Fire Department connection is required.
Public Works Department Conditions:
N. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met at the building permit
stage. The Engineering Division will require the applicant to guarantee and install all
missing street improvements along the Main Street and Melrose Avenue frontage,
including the construction of the one new and the removal and replacement of the two
driveway approaches per Chula Vista Construction Standard No.1, and new curb, gutter
and sidewalk along the existing Main Street frontage as needed. Maximum driveway
13
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 5
opening shall be 35-ft. including side flares. In addition, the installation of one 25D-watt
street light at the most westerly property line along Main Street.
O. The Public Works Department Engineering Division will require fees for sewer capacity
and connections, development impact for public facilities, and traffic signal fees as
defined in the development checklist as part of the building permit application.
P. A drainage study to check adequacy of existing off-site facilities and the ability to handle
flows from the proposed development.
Q. The grading and improvement plans shall include temporary and permanent erosion
control and pollution prevention components, as well as all drainage facilities. A
geotechnical/soils study will be required with the grading and improvement plans.
R. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for general
industrial uses may be required. Contact the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board at (858) 467-2971 to insure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.
S The NPDES Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01 requires compliance with Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) requirements, and numeric sizing criteria.
Police Department Conditions:
T. Obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department.
Specific recommendations shall be provided for access control, surveillance detection,
and police response. In addition, training of management and employees in security
procedures and crime prevention shall coincide with the commencement of operations.
The Crime Prevention Unit should be contacted at 691-5127 for more information.
Other Conditions:
U. The applicant shall contact the California American Water District for availability of
water for operational and fire protection purposes. All fees and deposits shall be
provided at the building permit stage.
v. The applicant shall contact the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula
Vista Elementary School District to determine the school fees that shall be paid as part of
the building permit
2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the following
requirements shall be met:
A. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping,
sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained
herein, Title 19, and the Montgomery Specific Plan.
1'-/
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 6
B. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
C All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the
approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner.
D. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.,
shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a
combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
E. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans.
F. Provide a fire extinguisher per 3,000-sq. ft. or every 75-ft. of travel distance, with a
minimum rating of 2A-lOBC, or the convenience store must include a fire sprinkler
system. A fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute for duration of three (3) hours must be
provided.
G. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire Department
connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor.
H. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or
the approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval,
unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date.
3. The following on-going condition shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies
upon this approval.
A. Buildings and Landscaping shall be maintained according to the approved plans unless
modifications are approved by the City of Chula Vista.
B. Fire lanes are to have an unobstructed width of not less than 20-ft. width and 13-112-ft.
vertical clearance.
C Catch basin filters shall be maintained and inspected as scheduled by the City of Chula
Vista Engineering Department.
D. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the
Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
/~
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 7
E. This Conditional Use Permit permit shall be suhject 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 Pennittee
the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
rightlcondition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permit tee of a
substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use
permitted, be expected to economically recover.
F. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the 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.
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.
EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read,
understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall
be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the
property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be
returned within ten days of recordation to the Agency's secretary. Failure to return said
document to the Agency's secretary shall indicate the property owners/applicant's desire that the
project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held
in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the Agency's office and
known as document No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
/0
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-32
Page 8
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The Planning Commission directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice <;Jf
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
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 that anyone or more tenns, provisions, or conditions are detennined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the pennit shall
be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-32 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 25th day of September, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
.J :\PLANNING\HAROLD\RESOLl1TIONS\PCRESOpcc02-32.DOC
Ii
- t . _:__' ----_---.,,-_
7:~-;f;~fk:
.... ""~ ;,..~CITY OF <:H:tJLA VISD\.
,....,~-; P. ""~.. . ~B. 1U...DdiD. ." .0 n......-_.
-. .'-:~~~~ . ---e.. . ~oIo7V~~
vCllYDf ...21oFod~
. CHlIAMSIA .'@9.)6!1.J.3:19~
.T\'J'E;OFRVm:W-.
---- ~--
- -------~-
---- -
!Xt CondIIIaIOlUse Pemif
o \tuicnce
DeYeloprnent"Processh'1g
Application Form - Type A
Page One
..~'....C........'..~'._.....,.
.', ":a '. . . ., '. .' ~ " '" . ~
- -, ,," ,. '.'-"
. -. . , -
:,..;..,.., - - .. - . '. '.
... CbeekODe)
fsIaff uSe onPtt Ca5e Na.: .
~Date: \-0-D \ ~ ~(t
"""Y-.I ft:mner: 5\C." '€-~f\ \::Q,
IEceIpr No..: n..~ - 00 55'-:J... <;;G(
Pro/eCtAc::r: 9,-0 -qx-i ' -
0epa;itAcct: {)~ s-o ~
fI... .IM. rCcse;; ~ :-0 Cj._
au N::IIi:::~
~
Design RevIew
o 5.po(1ctJia1d_flem'Vtneae !t;j;:ollWAl'8c:OA)1
O.~1i;;ebau:
~'.'~-'.._." -, --" .:..-:........,
. . N.... f"'" 7 -Eleven, Inc.
Rapresented by: JESSEKIRK,MJT E&C, INC. I
AD. 55 I
17 -Eleven, Inc.. c/o Jesse Kirk, MIT, 105-G CoPperwood Way, Ocean~ide, CA 92054 I
n I" ktk.rest t'lP!ope!Iy ~ 11pj.&. u-.tl5notowner, ~CUIt~1Lo1 I
DOwn ~ l.eOse Din Escrow D Optia; to puchose Is ""'.m.ct1c r-- ... IaqUest See ~ I
on Pcge Two.
Phone No. 941-750-9960
FAX 941-750-9930
f>honeNo. 769721-4120
FAX 760-721-4209
~Qnt
Harold D.Wolfe, Jr. AlA
. . .'AdC.Ire....
.4949 S.R.c64 East, #333, BradentonH 34208
, . _ -'~-'.'. H _,' .
1;~~'D$-RfPI..ION(fwaD, ~
~,~ 80pasadUse
GASOLl~E.ADDlTIQN, 7c,?levep2Q2H8547 Commercial Gasoline Fuel Retail Sales
-,', .-: .: '.... .. --.. .. '._,' ".. -.
. ......... . '17~[~~I:"Of~'t-<Odd.~t
(PJease1;1S8~.JAAtcP<<Mdeafulde..u/fJtj...IC7!djusflf) , "..., for 1tJe pojectj
,SEE APPENDIX A
'.
.
~":p~~~~:~g.:8~~":~~~~~~1I1IS.~ YI'!!;!;AA9-4c99Wolfe Memo
'?_~J~ERTY~. 'JlU
D~ o&.re<<o - ~ Vc"\;1 Ie,,! RJ;
AIOO{If..,.. .....J
,~3@0;Ma:inStreet, Chula Vista, GA.392q10
>24-060-56& 624-060-57
cjZ
1,24 Acres
W
NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
Is 1hi5 111
1I~''e)
~~"l~1OF2J
. NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Convience Store / ~
1'Z!W
'.,;~M~
~
~- -~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning &Building Department
276 FolD'th A'VeIl!IC
( 619)(j91.5101
Devetopment Processing
Application Form
Page Two
C1Y Of
CHUlA VISTA
~.'.~~
Case No.;
PROPOSED PROJECT (aJltypib)
iType of Use Proposed landscape COYeJage I" 0I1.ot) 15%
I ::J Residenffal [Z) Corrrn. Oind. DOttIer 8tJIdr1g Coverage (%01 Lotj 16%
RESIDENTIALPRGJECT~
(Type ofDwe!lingUni1(s) Number of Lois
I
'No. of Dwe!Ung Units
PIoposed
EJdsting
18R
2..AR
3+8R
Toto!
i (UUS/o:;re I
,Farkim Srn88 lQtg! Off-stleet TvPe ofPatingI*e:...nether<::::l8e(l)
i
I Required by Code:
I Provided:
I
iOpen Space Description {Acres'eOCholprM::lle. CCJm7JCrJ. onciJaj.I~ q:..\'IIJ
. -' . -
j. 'NON,;;RESIDENTIAt.PR()JECf SUMMARY
F'r~ 1- Story
4,424 1,824 2,600 Canopy 18.5':!:
Hbursof Opercfion ~!. lOa)
I
i 7 days per week; 24 hours per day
lAr!1icip::lTed TOTCI # Emplo<;e es 9 1M:Jx. #- OT .~ at ony<one time 3 I
PorkingSpaces RequITed 'Spaces-PIt:Ntded 18 1ypeOfpa1ci1Q(siZe)
11 9' x 18' (90 degree)
i* nr~~CX>Ie) enllf.".. ""'4 ng
I
~E:::':: ,;::';~1Wr2€(qg~
JESSE KIRK FOR OWNER (See Letter)
1int Owner Nome Owner Sign:Jtl.Jle"
(Requked 11 App/ica)t ~ 001 Orvner)
1-3-07...
Dote
Dote
. Letter ct .:Moner cor.$erir rrel oe IAeC1 In lieu 01 $ignC1/'JTe.
/q
=00\.f A..A4GE 2 c:;: ;'
11/99
"------------ -
PIa: . ..... ..1g -& .f!1.:IIcJIrIgDepoltmel'1t
P",..i.i.DWisiOD - Develapmeat Pr<<essing
276Fourtb A~ ChuJa VisIa, CA 91910
(619) 69J..5101
Application Appendix-A"
PROJECT DESCRlPTJON AND JUSTIFiCATION
PROJECT NAME:
GASOLINE SALES ADDITION -7-ELEVEN 18574
APPLICANT NAME: 7-Eleven, Inc. By Jesse Kirk, MIT E&C, INC,
-
Please describe fully .thePfoposed PJt',ject, anyandaB c:onstrudionthat maybe aGCOI.~
as a resuft Ot~.,atlhisp.~and file pl'DjecrsbenefitS to yourse/f,tbeproperty, the
neignborimodandibeCity att:titllaVista. Irx:Iude~ rfF>bik,.....~~)'to att.oql.l t.:/) ~ain
the scope andfor ..,-.dwn.ofthe proposed prnjecl Yw. may Include any ~I.wnd
ulu"..~tiol1 and SI..Ip!:ICI1ing statements reg.udi..g the reasons for, or appropriateness at. the
appJicafion.Use an addendumsf1eet if neG=6,")'.
For aU Conc:IitiOOaI Use Permits orV.riaJlW<:;;, please address the required "Findings" as listed in
listed in the AJ''&' .:d:'m ProcedurafGuide.
Description & JtJ~tion.
Proposed Addition of Gasoline Sales Facility at the existin~ 7-Eleven #18547 convenience store.
The project is located at 4300 Main Street on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Main Street
and Melrose Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, Califomia.
The (approximately 1.24 acres) site is partially developed with commercial use consisting of 2,600 sq.
ft. convenience market; parking lot for eleven vehicles, four parking lot light standards; one small
monument sign and mature landscaping, The streets are improved with a traffic signal at the
intersection; curb, gutter and sidewalk (in good repair) and two 29' driveways (one at each street).
The property to the north (across Otay Valley Road) and to the south is developed as multifamily
residential. The property to the east (across Melrose Avenue is developed as commercial. The
property to the west is vacant.
The proposed addition (to the west of the existing store) consists of a 24' x 76' canopy over three multi-
product gasoline dispensers (six fueling positions); two double wall fiberglass underground gasoline
storage tanks; trash enclosure with masonry walls and metal gates per city standards; air and water
dispensing unit; paved parking lot with seven additional parking spaces (for a total of eighteen parking
spaces on site); three additional parking lot lighting standards; additional 40' driveway 75' south of the
existing drive on Otay Valley Road; additional landscaping along Otay valley Road; two D25 double
faced monument signs (with 7-Eleven logo and scrolling gasoline prices). One sign oriented to Otay
Valley Road and one oriented to Melrose Avenue.
The proposed addition is in compliance with the current General Plan and a pennitted use under
current zoning regulations. The additional signage is in response to the Califomia Bureau of Weights
and Measures regulations.
--_._-,._---
. - --- -;~tlix a
THE. rYOF'cHULAVlSTADlSCL05URE. ATEMENT
. . You are required toffiea Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or frnai1ciaf interests, payments.
orc:ampaign contributions, on allmatt.ers which will require discretionary action .on the part cf1heCily
Counci~ Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disdosed:
1. Ustthe names mall.persons baYing financial hdc,=>l in the property which is the subject of 1he
application or fi1econtract,e.g., wmer applicant, c:onb~, ~, material supplier.
7-Eleven, Inc. MIT Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Southland Employees' Trust Harold D. Wolfe, Jr. - Architect, AlA
Tokihira and Betty Tauneko Yano Marvin H. Taniguchi & Assoc,
Landscape Architect
2.. If any.per:sor?' identiIied pursuarit.1o (1}.above is iii. CCtpOlationor.partneTshjp. list the names maD
indjWinsolg. owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning C1r1y partnershipintetest
in the parInership.
Andy Metz, 7 -Eleven, Inc.
Jesse Kirk, MIT
Lawyers Title Insurance Company
3. If any persan. identifiedpunwantto (1) above is non-profil organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as diredorof the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefICiary or trustor of
the trust.
4. Have you had more than $251;1. werth of busi........ transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, CommiSSions, Cammitlees. and Council Within the past twe!vemontl1s? Yes No X
If yes, pleaseindicatepelSCJl'l(&); - -
5. PJease. AJt.t~eadJ:andevery person, inctuding any agents, employees, cons.uIta11ts, or
independent cOIlhaGtuJ'$ Who yoIJhave assigned torepl8$l!nt~ before the City inlhis matter.
Harold D. Wolfe, Jr. - Architect, AlA Bill Ferreria, J.B. Young & Assoc. Civil Engineers
Marvin H. Taniguchi-& Assoc.
David O'Connell, CN Products
6. Have you and/or your :officet~. :or -agents, inlheag~te, contributed more then $1,000 tD a
CoIJnciImemberin theCUl'lentorprecedlng eIedion period? Yes _ No L If yes,staIe which
Coundlmember(s);
.,.,. {_3_D:n'''1TACH'''''''''''''''p~
Jesse Kirk, MIT {AyY Y TuVf
Printer type name of dapplicant
d(
. p~ IS lk:jincd "'.. . A..... indmdw:J/.frrm.. co-~hip,jtJin(WMu'<. <USOCiaiJ_ SOClai drtb. fnmrrnal ~~.
~ lNGI.. ~nivcr. SJ.w~. rise end arry OIhu cOImly, ciJ).' tzntJ COImPJ'. city mJutidpaiity. distrld. or Plner~! nzbdiviriOl1. or art..\.<
Dlitt!:!" r'OItp or comhi'ntmon a~!il1g ~ 4 JUJil. -
Perrnit.ApPli~
AppIicanfs.Address:
Tjpe Of Permit
AgfB8lTlelltDate:
Deposit Amount:
A.Pf'BIDIX C
(1 ~n)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT
7-Eleven, Inc, c/o Jesse Kirk, MIT E&C, Inc.
105 CQQperwood Wi3v. Suite G. Oceanside. CA 92054
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
. .. ..(tooefilledinondateofexecution)
$2,350.00 (Verify with Steve Power 619-409-5864)
This Agreement -("Agreem."K) . between the City of Chu/a VISta. a cha.t...<=d municipal
corporaticn("City'} and thefarenamed ~ntfar a development permit rAppicanf'), effecWe as of
the AgreementDatesetfortbaboYe,ismade wilhreferenc:e tc the following fads:
Whefeas, Applicant tras~ lied to the City fora permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit")
whictJ:tI1e City has crequired to be ~as a.amditiIJn to permilling Applicant. tc tlevelcp a parcel of
property; and,
Whereas. !be CitY will incur_rISeS in ordertc p..........s 103idpermif Ihroughlhe various
depanmentsand..befDretbevaricus boards and commissions oftheCityiPIt'{""'~L;'1Q Services"); and,
Wheteasthepurpose of:itlil;~l1 ......t is tc reimburse the City for all expensesil will incur in
connection with prtMding the Proo:.ss.d IQ Services;
Now. the~, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange fur the mutual promises herein contained,
asfcHows:
1. Applicant's Duty to ~.
Appticant shall pay aU of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services rela!edto
Applicant'sPenuit, inCluding aD of City'sdirect and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of
Appticant shaD be Icr.,uC:d to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay.'
1.1. ~4's Deposit Duty.
As padiaI..pedonnanceOf AppflCant'S Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferer1cecl ("DeJjcsitj.
1.1.1. . CIty staall chcm.Iells lawful .e>;penses incun'edin.provicirjg PtDcesSioa
SetW:es pqstApp/ical1t's DeposIt. If,mterthe CI:II1CiusiGInor prt>o ="iPg Ar>r~ -,jj,''s
P~1I1'1)':~~Of#1e~~. CJty~retUrTI~~:,tcJ ~nt
withotItio~~tbereOn.lf. ~~ the proCessingOfApp/k;tuJt~ F\:.i.IiLthe .~. of
the Deposit .becatt1ea. eJItIaustedior is imminently likeJyto~ ~JI&ted in the
opiniOn 'of the e (:Iy, ~. ~.tiCe.(If 1IaIjrie.. b)' Qity, ~4 .~ ~. pmvfde
such ~ ~~.asCltyShaQ .c8iCutate as .reasonSbIY nei:em.'Y toconlinue
~ Setvfces. The duty of Applicant tolnltiaBydeposltand to supplement said
deposit as herein required shalf be known as -Applicant's Deposit Duty".
2. City's Duty.
City shall, upcnlhe condition that Applicant is no in bread'! of Applicant's Duty to Pay or
AppJicant'sDeposit Duty, use good falhto proW1e processing services In relation to Applicam's
penili! spplic:atiori.
2. 1, City shalf have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure 10 process Applicant's
Permit application, or fer failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by
Applicant or estimated by City. ~
7 -Eleven 18574 page 1 of 3
.. - - ------
Al'P.ENDDCC
('2o(2)
22. By execution of this iiIgJeament AppjicarnslJaU have no right to the Permit for Which
AppIic;.aIit has applied. CityshaJI use its cisaetionin valuating AprIIicant's Pennit
AppIicatiOf\witbouI.reg;mf to AppIic;ant'spromise to pay for the Processing Services, or
the execution of !he Agreement.
3. RemecfleS.
3.1.' .~t~"cfPr!x:eh1Ftg
In additianlo -all otherrigbls 'and remedies which the City 6ha11 otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right tosuspetlCiandlor .wiItd1akIthe processing of the Permit which is the subject
....dtt:r cf thiS ~as - /8!l1tte Pennitwhichmay be the subject matter ofanyathsr'Pennit
which .Applicant fJas.beroIe1he CIty.
3.2. Civi~
In "'.~tc"OIher.~and.niIm8die$whid1the City sbalIothentise have;atJaw or equity,
the Ciybas,the right to aJIIect;allsums whid1 <nor maybeoo..e due hereunder ~ civilacIion,anci
upon instiIutil19~..liontD GC~ same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attamey's
fees and.cos1s.
4. Miscellaneous..
4.1 Natic=..
All notices. ~ or.requests prcvidecI for or permiIIed to .be giYenpur.suant to. U1is
Agreement m&l$t tie in Itf,lti..y.AI1 notices, demands and P"'l'-1E to be sent tEl any patty &hall be
deemed to havebeen~~ gillen or oSenIed lpersor.ally served or dejX>Site.j jlltheUnited~ I~'S
mail, acldAilssed to such party, rx>st~ prepaid, ~kot=bl or oe.tifted,WiIh return receipt reques1ed at
!he ac:Idni!ssEis iclentifiedadjacent to -the Sigrlom RS of 1he parties represented.
4.2. GowIrning 1.awNenu&.
1TfIi&AgreementcShallbe~..,.j by~ ~:ueclin acam:lance with1he laWs oflhe State
cfCalifcl'~ Any .action ~~~rar relating to tbis ~1='It shall be lIrDugtJf.QR/y in1ile
fi!del3tw:stalet.Xlt.l:ls ~iliSanDiego Coc.nty. stated CA<..111a. and if~the City of
CbuJaV.JStii;.orasdesethere.u.as pos"~Ie. Venue torlhis AgI.....n1el1t, and p...tu..uomce hereunder.
shalf .be the City ofChula VISta.
.4.3.",,1tipIe s...~
If :thereare .1nUlt!I*' ~~tofissgreBmem on behalf afApplicant, each of such
signatories shall be jointly -and seVendly liable fur the pelfOl1Tlal'lCe of AppIi.-.r s dUties herein set
ferth,
4A. S~"'~1Autnorib'..
This.slgnatory tothJs~ hereby warrants and ~ .:.sents that he is1he duty
designated agent for the ~It and has. been duly authorized. by 1he ~m eXMiIe ;tt1i6
A.graement 011 behalf of tI1e~Signatotysball be persona/Iy liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay
and AppIicant's Duty to DepoSit in the event he has not been autholi2.:d to E'~ ~ this Agreement by
~.
.-Eleven 18574 page 2 of 3
.,.L3
-------"---
~-~-----
___._ _. - __._ - _____ ____ __ -0
__.,u_______._ _
APPENDIX C
(3 of3)
4.5 Hold Harmless.
Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold hal111/e$s the City, its elected and appointed
officers and ~, from. aOO .iIQ3JnsI anydaims, suits, .aC:tiOI1S orprorecrJj~ jl1tf!C.ialor
administrative,for writs. o~, iqjunction<< .Qther relief, ~, liability. ~.and ~
(indtAiir!g witiJoutJj..~aU:vt.16.r.' fees)aai&il.g out Of City'sactiansin ~ or.is$Uing
APf"ir'>'1t'sPerrnit, or~ex~19 any .~ retated theretoindul:!ingbut not Jimit.ed te the gNing
of proper enYilor~ f8View.1he hOlding of pubic hearings. the extensionafdueprrJC2SSrigtUs,
except cnlyfcrthose ClaIms, sUits, actions or proCeedings arising from the sole negligenCe or SOle
willfu/conduc:tof the City, its. office!:s, .or employees. known to, but notabjecled te, by the Applicant.
Applicanf'sinctemnificafion .$l'JaJlincIude any and all costs.~"'ces, attomey'sfees ana .Iiabtiiity
incunedby1beCity, its~i agents. or em,,",~_ .indefendingagailstcSUCb cIaitns'WheIhBr";the
sameproc:eedto~or"lCJt_ FW1tter, A~"'It.at. own expense, shal, upon written ~
by the City, cIefend~s!Jclnlit or action -brought -against the City, its officers, agents,orempJoyeles.
App/icant's indemnification .Df City shall not be limited by any priorer SltW"q'oe<'It declaration by the
Applicant. At its SOle discI'etion,theCitymay parficipate at its own e~""" in the defense many
sUCh actin. but such pam~"";'1Q shall not "e'i~ve the applicant of any obfigafion inlposedbythis
condition.
4.6 Administrative "CJaims RequRment$and Procedures.
No suit or ..bih~shaII be brought arising .out of 1his -Iy_ement against the City unless a
claim has first been pre$e(Ited iRwritingandfiJed with the City ofChulaV'1Sta and acted upoo by the
City of Chu/aVista inal'Y!rVli"l""'" with the pmc;edures set forth in Chapter 1-34 Df the~ VISta
Municipal Code,as SBPJe. may from time to time be ....."'..ded, the pn:wisicns Of which are
incorponned by this ,.,;",,,,,, Ice. as if f\JIIy set forth herein, and stICh po!ii::iesand procedures used by
the City in theimplementatian of same, Upon reque5tby City, Consultant shall meet and ccnfer in
good faith with City for the purpose of TBSOlwing any clSputeover the terms of this AgrCCluent
Now.therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions efthis
agreement. do hereby express their consent te the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set fcrthadjacent thereto.
Dated:
City ofChula VISta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu!a Vista. CA
By:
Dated: {- '3- CY2-- 7-Eleven, Inc.
By JesseKirk, MIT E&C. Inc.
~ 6~~~~;~~~~A~g:~y
By:_
By J e Kirk, MIT E&C Inc.
!.~~YI(
~y
.Eleven 18574 page 3 of 3
Tokihira and Betty Tauneko Yano
1063 Saturn Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92154
September 26, 2001
Chula Vista Planning & Building Department
Planning Division - Development Processing
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE:
Proposed Gasoline Sales Addition
7-Eleven 18547
4300 Otay Valley Road
Chula Vista, CA 92010
To whom it may concern:
Please be advised that we the owner of Parcel 1, P.M. 7453 (a portion of which is
proposed to be improved with gasoline sales facility) do hereby grant permission to and
authorize JESSE W. KIRK ofMIT Engineering & Construction to act on our behalf and
represent us in matters concerning the Processing, Permitting and Construction of the
referenced project.
Sincerely,
, ! ~ '
A //-/ VI'L-A ./
~ ~t:::..J-/ /LLfCd-/ I~ /L--v'
;fokihira Yano f
/.
c /y('
/,' ~
.'
/
/ (J ,I
Date
~ u(V-ZA-Jc.J
Betty Ta neko Yano
7CUV) /~c~ .
Date /
co2S-
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600-sq. ft.
satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at
121 0 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street.
The applicant is seeking approval of a Precise Plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.120,
Sections 19.14.570 - 580 and Sections 19.56.040 - 048, which allows for deviations from Zoning
Code as well as the Montgomery Specific Plan development standards in order to add a 6,600-sq. ft.
satellite retail building within an existing in-line retail shopping center. The proposed satellite
building will include a Starbuck's Cafe with an outdoor seating area, and two new commercial
tenants.
The proposal also requires a Planned Sign Program pursuant to Municipal Code Sections
19.60.220 - 250 and Sections 19.60.490 - 520 for the existing and new signage being proposed,
and the applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Committee to replace the two
existing freestanding "lollypop" pole signs with a single pylon sign, requesting that the Planning
Commission overturn the Design Review Committee's decision in order to allow for the retention
of the two non-conforming pole signs.
Pursuant to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental
Division has reviewed the proposal and found that the Precise Plan to add the satellite building is
exempt per Section 15303 (c) for small new structures, and that the Planned Sign Program is also
exempt per Section 15311 (a) for on-premise signs.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their August 19, 2002 meeting, the
Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan and the Planned Sign Program
with the modification to the Planned Sign Program as noted in the Notice of Decision.
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 the attached 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 attached draft City Council resolution
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The project site is a portion of the existing parking lot located between big box shopping centers
(Target and Costco). The Brake Depot is a satellite building immediately to the south on the
adjacent property. A Pizza Hut out parcel is located on the corner of Broadway and Oxford Street
within the same shopping center. There are also smaller shopping centers and apartment buildings
(
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-2-
September 25,2002
to the east along the Broadway corridor. To the west there is a variety of distribution center
industrial uses, mixed with some incidental commercial retail. Further west, there is the recently
constructed San Diego County Health Services building, the MTDB trolley/railroad right-of-way,
Industrial Boulevard, and Interstate 5 corridors. The project site is also located within the
Montgomery Specific Plan area.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
The General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan designate the site as Commercial Retail and/or
Mercantile and Office Commercial. The Zoning is Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifYing
district overlay. The current surrounding land use designations, zoning and existing land uses are:
General Plan Land Use Designation
& Montgomery Specific Plan:
Zoning:
Existing: Land Use:
North:
Commercia/ Retail
CC
Costco/Price Club
South:
Commercial Retail
Mercanti/e & Office Commercial
CCP
Target/Michael's
Brake Depot
East:
Commercial Retail
Mercantile & Office Commercia/
CCP
Shopping Center
Ritmo Latino
West:
Research & Limited Manufacturing
ILP
Distribution Center
3. Proposal
Precise Plan:
The applicant proposes to construct a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite building in the existing parking lot, realign
the existing parking configuration including landscaped planters at the ends of the parking aisles,
provide a lO-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Streets, and provide fayade
improvements to the existing in-line building.
The utilization of a Precise Plan will allow for the following deviations from Zoning Code,
Montgomery Specific Plan, and Design Manual, as long as the Precise Plan findings and Montgomery
Specific Plan finding for outstanding planning and urban design can be made.
The follow deviations are being requested as part of the Precise Plan for the shopping center:
1. A reduction in the parking space requirement, so that the outdoors seating for the Starbucks
is not included in the parking space evaluation. The total number of parking spaces, including
a request to allow up to 20 percent to be compact space dimensioned spaces, is 307, and will
meet the minimum one parking space per 200-sq. ft. retail floor area ratio and one parking
space per 2.5 seat ratio for the two restaurants (Starbucks and Pizza Hut) in the center;
J....
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-3-
September 25, 2002
2. A reduction in the Montgomery Specific Plan required IS-ft. landscape buffer along
Broadway and Oxford Street to a 10-ft. landscape buffer on both streets;
3. No intermediate landscape tree wells, medians or fingers between the proposed landscape
islands at the end of the parking space aisles as required by the Design Manual.
Planned Sign Program
In addition, the applicant is appealing the Planned Sign Program as approved by the Design Review
Committee. The shopping center has two legal non-conforming freestanding pole signs, consisting of
a 50-ft. freestanding single pole sign along Broadway and a 30-ft. double pole sign along Oxford
Street. The pole signs are non-conforming due to the 35-ft. height limit for poles signs and number
(the Zoning Code only allows only one pylon sign for parcels less than 5-acres). The Design Review
Committee required that a single 32-l/2-ft. pylon sign be provided indicating major individual tenants
of the shopping center.
The Planned Sign Program as approved by the DRC will allow for the retention of the existing walls
signs for Bigl Lots and Payless Shoe Source. New walls signs would be allowed for the Everything
$5 Store, the Starbucks Coffee, and the two new tenants of the satellite building. In addition, new
signboard areas would be allowed for additional tenants of the in-line shopping center building (in the
event that the building is further subdivided into smaller suites) in between Payless Shoe Source and
the southern edge of the building up to 70 percent of the fa~ade area, at I-sq. ft. per lineal foot of
street frontage.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is seeking approval of a Precise Plan because of the need for some exceptions or
deviations from the Design Manual, Zoning Code, and Montgomery Specific Plan in order to add a
commercial building to this existing shopping center. The Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission review, and the City Council must approve Precise Plans. Since the project is also
located within the Montgomery Specific Plan area the deviations allowed through the Precise Plan
must be countered or compensated for by a finding that the proposed project would be "characterized
by outstanding planning or urban design."
The original project submittal showed the proposal to provide some much needed improvements to
the existing shopping center, such as a landscape buffer along Broadway, a revised parking lot aisle
and parking space alignment, and landscaped aisle ends, but lacked the necessary architectural
compatibility needed between the new satellite building and the existing in-line shopping center for a
Precise Plan.
On June 3, 2002 the Design Review Committee entertained a preliminary review of the proposal,
wherein it was recommended that the proposed satellite building and the existing in-line building
possess similar architectural features, materials, and colors. The applicant provided the necessary
architectural changes and as a result, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the
Precise Plan at their August 19, 2002 public hearing.
3
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-4-
September 25, 2002
However, with regards to the Planned Sign Program, the applicant is appealing the Design Review
Committee's decision to replace the existing legal non-conforming pole signs with a single pylon
board sign, based on their need to minimize the additional costs of providing a more substantial
redevelopment of the existing shopping center, as well their interpretation of the Zoning Code thatthe
non-conforming pole signs do not have to be appropriately amortized at this time.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning Code. Montgomery Specific Plan. and Design Manual:
The following table demonstrates the project's conformance with the development standards of the
Central Commercial (CCP) Zone and the Montgomery Specific Plan (MSP). The highlighted
portions of the table represent the deviations being requested through the Precise Plan or the appeal
of the Planned Sign Program
STANDARDS
Front Building Setback:
Exterior Side Setback:
Interior Side Setback:
Rear yard setback:
MSP Landscape Buffer/Setback:
Lot Coverage:
REQUIRED
25 feet
25 feet
o feet
o feet
15 feet
50 percent
PROPOSED
85 feet
250 feet
5 feet
30 feet
10 feet
28 percent
Parking Spaces:
330 spaces
Maximum Building Height:
Maximum Sign Height:
45 feet
35 feet
307 parking spaces
(not including 23 spaces for
the outdoor seating)
25 feet
50 feet
The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the reduction from the required 15-ft.
landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street to lO-ft. The Design Review Committee also
recommended approval to reduce the parking space requirements in order to allow the outdoor patio
seating for the proposed Starbucks cafe.
There are 14 tables with 4 seats each, for a total of 56 seats designated for outdoor seating. Typically
all fixed seating is included in the parking space evaluation, whether it is indoors or outdoors, and the
requirement is 1 parking space per 2-1/2 seats.
The applicant also requests that a deviation be allowed in order to retain the legal non-conforming
pole signs, which deviate because of height (50-ft.) and number (2) will be discussed later in the
analysis regarding the Planned Sign Program appeal.
In addition, although not listed in the table, the Design Manual recommends that intermediate
landscaping or tree wells within parking space areas be provided, and the applicant proposed not
to include any intermediate landscaping. The Design Review Committee allowed for this
deviation as part of the Precise Plan.
of
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-5-
September 25, 2002
Parking Lot:
The site plan represents a dramatic improvement to the existing circulation system for vehicles,
which currently has a non-conforming layout with regards to driveway aisles and parking space
dimensions. For example, the existing two-way drive aisles access single and double loaded
parking spaces from the left instead of the right, creating a haphazard condition and the potential
for poor traffic circulation. The angled parking aisles will now be uniform and conform to City
standards for right-turn in only circulation within two-way driveway aisles shared with
perpendicular parking spaces or one-way driveway aisles for two-sided angled parking.
Site Plan:
As mentioned, the revised parking lot layout will include landscaped aisle ends but no intermediate
tree wells. Staff recommended the inclusion of intermediate tree wells to the Design Review
Committee, stating that tree wells would not adversely affect the layout or number of parking spaces
anymore than the existing parking light poles to be retained, and would make the project more
consistent with the adjacent parking lot (Target/Michael's shopping center). However, the
applicant's request to not include intermediate tree wells, due to cost, was upheld by the Design
Review Committee. Staff therefore recommends that the Design Review Committee's decision be
upheld, and that intermediate tree wells not be required as allowed by the Precise Plan as a deviation
from the Design Manual.
Landscaping:
The applicant has agreed to provide a revised conceptual landscape plan in conformance with the
Landscape Planner's comments that included consideration for the overall concept to include some
elements of the planting that will be provided for the Target portion of the shopping center, as well as
the existing Pizza Hut parcel's existing landscaping.
It appears that the reduction from Montgomery Specific Plan landscape buffer along Broadway and
Oxford Street from IS-ft. to 10-ft. would be acceptable. Of note, the Target/Michael's shopping
center was recently approved and will entail enhancement of their existing landscape buffer up to lO-
ft. from the City's right-of-way along Broadway and Palomar Street, as part of their current
renovation plans within the shopping center along the remaining portion of Broadway.
Staff believes that a reduction in the street landscaping requirement can be acceptable in instances
such as this where existing shopping centers are upgrading and have limited opportunities to provide
the full width landscape buffer without impacting some other requirement such as parking.
There is currently a row of palm trees within the Broadway right-of-way that will help to enhance the
1 O-ft. proposed. There is also a IS-ft. landscape buffer in front of Pizza Hut on the corner, and IO-ft.
of right-of-way along Oxford Street to add to the 10-ft. proposed by the applicant along Oxford
Street. Therefore the buffer will appear to satisfY the intent of the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Of note, the proposed on-site landscaping is less than 10 percent for all parking areas and 15 percent
overall as recommended by the Design Manual, unless the existing "Pizza Hut" parcel and right-of-
way landscaping is included. In this case, the existing palm trees on Broadway and shrubbery on
Oxford Street within the City's right-of-way compliment the IO-ft. landscape buffers.
')
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-6-
September 25, 2002
Architecture:
The applicant revised the elevations in response to the Design Review Committee's concerns raised at
the preliminary review mentioned above regarding the architecture of the new satellite building
complementing the existing in-line building.
New stucco treatment will be provided on the existing wooden signboard canopy of the "Big! Lots"
portion and a squared arch element over the "Everything $5" entrance will be introduced to mimic the
same elements being provided on the new satellite building. In addition, the split-face block on the
existing in-line building will be introduced on the new satellite building, and the metal canopy
proposed for the new satellite building will be introduced on the existing in-line building. The color
and materials will also be shared between the buildings contextually. As a result, staff recommends
approval ofthe new satellite building design and the proposed fayade treatment of the existing in-line
building as part of the Precise Plan.
Appeal of the Approved Planned Sign Program:
The applicant is appealing the decision ofthe Design Review Committee with regards to the Planned
Sign Program. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the two existing non-confonning
freestanding pole signs be retained, rather than replaced by a single pylon signboard.
The appeal statement (Attachment No.6) suggests that the replacement of the two pole signs for
single pylon signboard was not within the Design Review Committee's authority. This was implied
by reference to the non-conforming sign amortization requirements of the Zoning Code that allows
such signs to remain up to 15 years after the establishment of the non-conformity. The applicant also
suggests that a contractual obligation with the current pole sign users requires the retention of said
pole signs.
However, the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program applications provide the opportunity to upgrade
and revise existing non-conformities to meet City codes and standards. The existing pole signs have
been non-conforming since January 1, 1986 when the Montgomery annexation became effective. In
addition, these freestanding pole signs were reviewed against Zoning Code requirements that would
allow only a single pole sign for parcels less than 5 acres, and that the overall height of such a pole
sign would be a maximum 3S-ft. height and ISO-sq. ft.
The Zoning Code also stipulates that the Design Review Committee may reduce sign areas below
those authorized by the Code based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the Design
Manual. The sign guidelines of the Design Manual (Commercial Section Page III-12) state that
freestanding pole signs are strongly discouraged The current policy of the City is that all pole signs
are subject to Design Review Committee review and approval as part of a Planned Sign Program.
As such, the Design Review Committee approved the Planned Sign Program with the condition that
"A revised sign program shall he provided incorporating one new pylon not to exceed 32-y:' ft. in
height, or a monument sign to replace the existing freestanding pole signs. The comprehensive
signage prof.,rram shall he revised to include a note to the effect that each potential future tenant
signage shall he limited to 70% of the linear frontage oj'their 'pace. "
~
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-7-
September 25,2002
Statfrecommends that the Design Review Committee's decision be upheld, based on the following:
]. A new 32-112-ft. high pylon signboard is consistent with the Code and past practice of the City,
and will provide signage opportunity for the existing and future tenants. The existing single-pole
50-ft. high "lollypop" sign on Broadway provides no space for another user name besides Big!
Lots, and the existing double-pole sign on Oxford provides minimal visibility from Broadway for
the Everything $5 and Chula Vista Jewelry Center. A new pylon signboard could incorporate all
three of these current pole sign users. The pylon signboard would also perhaps eliminate the need
of the Everything $5 store operator to park a moving billboard truck within the parking lot spaces
along the Broadway frontage.
2. There have been numerous sign code violations and signage installed without benefit of required
sign permits within this shopping center. Both of the existing non-conforming pole signs have
been refaced without the required sign permits from the Planning Department. The existing 50-ft.
high "lollypop" single-pole sign was re-faced approximately in March 2002 when the existing wall
sign for Bigl Lots was submitted for review and approval as part ofthe name change from Pic-N-
Save. It is unknown to the City when the existing double-pole sign was refaced with Everything
$5 and Chula Vista Jewelry Center. The last permit issued for that pole sign was for DOW
Stereo/Video in April 1990. Other non-permitted signs in violation of the sign code include the
numerous banners, pennants, and inflated dirigibles for the Everything $5 and Chula Vista Jewelry
Center. The last permitted wall signs on record for the in-line shopping center include Payless
Shoe Source and Fashion Gal in July 1989. First Interstate Bank in May 1994 last permitted the
ATM kiosk sign age.
3. The Precise Plan request provides the most appropriate time to implement the Planned Sign
Program and provide all revised signage. The appellant request is to allow another five-years
before the existing pole signs be replaced, since the amortization requirement of the code was
adopted in 1992. However, this would allow for an existing non-conformity to continue when
improvements valued greater than the cost of removal are being requested (new satellite
building, architectural fac;:ade and landscape improvements, resurfacing of parking lot, etc.),
If the pole signs are retained for an additional 5 years, it will be difficult to ensure that they
will be removed at that time. Meanwhile, the 50-ft. high "lollypop" single-pole sign would
become the tallest pole sign within the vicinity of the south Broadway corridor, since the 70-ft.
high three-sided Target sign will be replaced by two 35-ft. pylon signboards on Broadway and
Palomar before the end of the year as part of the Target Department Store's Design Review
and Planned Sign Program that was approved in July 15, 2002. Another example is the
Jerome's pole sign on Third Avenue, where the non-profit MAAC project charter school is
now located and the Design Review Committee required the removal of that pole sign as part
of a Planned Sign Program on June 3,2002. 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 relating to pole signs, and are being implemented by staff and the Design Review
Committee.
7
PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
-8-
September 25, 2002
CONCLUSION:
Staffbelieves that the proposed improvement to this existing shopping center represents another step
in the incremental upgrade ofthe commercial properties in the Montgomery Specific Plan area. The
deviations from certain development standards are warranted given the overall improvements to the
parking layout, landscaping, and architectural consistency of the new and existing buildings.
The Precise Plan requires that specific findings be made for the deviations listed under the proposal
and are stated within the findings of the attached draft City Council Resolution document along with
the proposed conditions of approval, with the exception of the appeal ofthe Planned Sign Program.
The Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision for the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program
permits is attached, and includes their only proposed modifications which is related to the Planned
Sign Program, and is included in the draft conditions of approval that accompany the City Council
Resolution document.
The attached draft City Council Resolution document is also subject to any recommendations or
changes to made by the Planning Commission before a final approval can be made by the City Council
as part of this combined Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program permit.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission ResolutionPCM-02-
22 & PSP-03-0 I recommending that the City Council approved the Precise Plan and Planned Sign
Program subject to the draft City Council resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locator Map
2. Notice of Decision PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0J
3. Minutes of the Design Review Committee Public Hearing August 19, 2002
4. Planning Commission Resolution PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
5. Draft City Council Resolution
6. Sign Program Appeal Letter and Application
7. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement
8. Site/Landscape Plan/Floor PlanslElevations
J:IPlanninglHAROLDIPCM-02-22PCreport.DOC
~
HARBORSIDE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
PRICE BAZAAR
HOME CLUB
CENTER
\ ,
\ \
\\\~
V% PROJECT
\\~. LOCATIO
\ \
\
PALOMAR
COMMERCE
CENTER
T~!<-~~-T
I'(Mli'''''H ~
\i
I I
SHOPPING
CENTER
o
PALOMAR ST
PALOMAR
TROLLEY
CENTER
I
I
c::;u
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: RANCHO BRC),A[)INI\,Y, LID. PRECISE PLAN
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 1210 BROADWAY 9 Request: Proposal to add a 6,600 sq.ft. freestanding
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: commercial building at Pic 'N Save Center.
NORTH No Scale PCM-02-22
j :\h ome\p Ian n i ng\cherrylc\locators\pcm0222 .cdr 05.09.02
ATTACHMENT "A"
~\ ~ f?-
7~:
~~~
~
Design Review Committee
em OF
CHUIA VISTA
NOTICE OF DECISION
On PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01
Notice is hereby given that the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered
PCM-02-22 and PSP-03-01, a Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a new 6,600-sq. ft.
satellite retail building and the existing in-line retail shopping center.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the Precise Plan project
qualifies for an exemption per Section IS303 (c) for small new structures, and the Planned Sign
Program qualifies for an exemption per Section IS311(a) for on-premise signs per State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. The Design Review Committee
approved said request based upon the following findings of facts:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of the
CCP (Central Commercial within a Precise Plan Modifying District) Zone, the
Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Environmental Review.
The project is not consistent with the parking and landscaping requirements of the CCP Zone
and the Montgomery Specific Plan: however, the precise plan will enable the development to
provide an outdoor seating area without increasing the required parking spaces beyond what
would be required for the entire shopping center retail noor area and indoor restaurant
seating. The precise plan will also allow for a reduction in the IS-ft. landscape buffer along
Broadway and Oxford Street as required in the Montgomery Specific Plan to a to-ft.
landscape buffer. In addition, the redevelopment of the shopping center can be considered as
one "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design" in that the site plan and
architecture will of the shopping center will be signiticantly improved, and will enhance and
benefit the surrounding community and general vicinity. The project is exempt from
environmental review as a Class 3 and Class 11 exemption from CEQA. Therefore, the
project will be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Montgomery Specific Plan and
the Environmental Review.
2. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
The design features are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying, the City
of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual. There will be improved vehicular
and pedestrian circulation, landscape elements, and architectural elements and features
shared between the new satellite building and the existing in-line shopping center building.
The in-line shopping center building will receive revised fayade treatment and wall signage.
A more modern and subdued pole sign will be required if desired as a condition of approval.
to
The Design Review Committee approved the draft City Council Resolution for Precise Plan
PCM-02-22 and Planned Sign Program PSP-03-01 as presented to them with the following
modifications:
1. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the
subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following
requirements:
b. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The
planting and irrigation shall be revised in conformance with the revised conceptual
landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect
prior to issuance of building permit.
d. Provide revisions to the planned sign program, A revised sign program shall be
provided incorporating one new pylon not to exceed 32-Yz ft. in height, or a
monument sign to replace the existing freestanding pole signs. The comprehensive
signage program shall be revised to include a note to the effect that each potential
future tenant signage shall be limited to 70% of the linear frontage of their space.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote,
to-wit:
A\1ES: AGUILAR, ARAIZA, ALBERDI
NOES
ABSTAIN MESTLER
ABSENT: MORLON
ATTEST
~'-~~"'-"C ~C-C-
Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary
J :\PLANNING\HAROLDIPCM-02-22DECISION.DOC
{f
2
OR AFT
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Mondav. AUQust 19. 2002
4:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Service BuildinQ
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
A. PRESENT:
Chair Aguilar, Vice Chair Araiza, and Members Jose
Alberdi and Cheryl Mestler
ABSENT:
Member Morlon (excused)
STAFF PRESENT:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
Ann Pease, Associate Planner
Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Mark Stephens, Principal Planner
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tom Davis
Peter Springer
Dan Malcolm, Rancho Bemardo Partners
John Ziebarth Associates
John Dannon
Richard Kuhle, Vestar Development
Doug Childs, James Leary & Associates
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Aguilar
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 17,2002 and July 15, 2002
MSC (Araiza/Alberdi) (3-0-1-1) to approve the minutes of June 17, 2002. Motion
carried, Member Mestler abstained.
MSC (Aguilar/Araiza) (3-0-1-1) to approve the minutes of July 15, 2002. Motion
carried, Motion carried, Member Alberdi abstained,
D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
E. PUBLIC HEARING:
1A. PCM-02-22
1 B. PSP-03-01
1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street
Precise Plan and a Planned Sion Prooram for a new
6,600-so. ft. satellite retail buildino and the existino in-
line retail shoppino center.
{~
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-2-
DRAFT
AUQust 19. 2002
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Harold Phelps, Associate Planner stated the applicant is seeking approval of a
Precise Plan for exceptions from the underlying zoning requirements. The Planning
Commission and City Council may approve such a permit. The project is also located
within the Montgomery Specific Plan area that allows for deviations through a Precise Plan
when the proposed project would be "characterized by outstanding planning or urban
design."
Staff stated the proposed project provides much needed improvements to the existing
shopping center, such as a landscape buffer along Broadway, a revised parking lot aisle
and parking space alignment, and landscape aisle ends. However, the applicant also
seeks some deviations from the Design Manual, Zoning Code and the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
Staff stated the applicant received a preliminary review on June 3, 2002 from the Design
Review Committee and it was apparent from that discussion that the DRC recommended:
1. Revisions to the architectural design of both the satellite building as well as to the
existing in-line shopping center building fat;:ade.
2. The provision of tree wells within the parking space areas.
3. The presentation of alternative signage to the existing freestanding pole signs.
The applicant proposes to construct a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite building in the existing parking
lot, realign the existing parking configuration including landscape aisle ends, and provide a
10-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway. In addition, the existing in-line building will be
improved with facade enhancements. The Precise Plan request for deviations is as
follows:
1. A minor reduction is the parking requirement, so that the outdoor seating for the
Starbucks is not included in the parking space evaluation. The total number of
parking spaces, including a request to allow up to 20 percent to be compact space
dimensioned spaces, is 307, and will meet the minimum one parking space per
200-sq. ft. retail floor area ratio and one parking space per 2.5 seat ratio for the two
restaurants (Starbucks and Pizza Hut).
2. A reduction in the Montgomery Specific Plan required 15-ft. landscape buffer along
Broadway to a 10-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street.
3. No intermediate landscape tree wells, medians or fingers between the proposed
landscape islands at the end of the parking space aisles.
4. The retention of the existing 50-ft. freestanding single pole sign along Broadway
and the 30-ft. double pole sign along Oxford Street, in lieu of more modern signage
as a monument sign or pylon sign indicating individual tenants of the shopping
center.
In addition, staff stated the applicant proposes a design standard through the Planned
Sign Program that would allow the shopping center to retain the existing pole signs as well
as the existing wall signs for Big Lots and Payless Shoes. New wall signs would be
provided for the Everything $5 Store, the Starbucks Coffee, and two new tenants of the
satellite building.
(3
J :\HOME\P LAN NING\R os EMARIE\DR CIMIN8-19-02
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-3-
DRAFT
AUQust 19. 2002
Mr. Phelps stated the revised site plan represents a major improvement to the existing
circulation systems for vehicles, which currently has a non-conforming layout with regards
to driveway aisles and angled parking space alignment. The angled parking aisles will
now be uniform and conform to right-turn only circulation within two-way driveway aisles
shared with perpendicular parking spaces or exclusive one-way drive aisles for two-sided
angled parking.
While the current sign plan does not show tree wells within the parking aisles, as shown in
the Target Shopping Center, staff believes that trees can also be provided to
accommodate similarly to the existing parking lot lights and are recommended as a
condition of approval for the precise plan.
Staff stated with regard to the landscape setbacks, it appears that the reduction from 15-ft.
to 10-ft. could be acceptable; there is currently a row of palm trees within the Broadway
right-of-away that will help to enhance the 10-ft. proposal and there is also a 15-ft.
landscape buffer in front of the Pizza Hut along Broadway, as well as along Oxford Street.
In addition, there is also 10-ft. of landscaping within the right-of-away of Oxford Street so
the proposal to add 10-ft. on site appears to satisfy the intent of the Montgomery Specific
Plan.
Staff stated the revised architecture elevations show some response to the Design Review
Committee concerns about the new satellite building complementing the existing in-line
building. New stucco treatment will be provided on the existing wood face sign board
canopies and the split face block on the existing in-line building will be introduced on the
new satellite building. Also the squared arch element and metal canopy being provided on
the satellite building will be introduced on the in-line building over the Everything $5
entrance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee find that the Precise Plan and the
Planned Sign Program are substantially consistent with the Design Manual and the
Montgomery Specific Plans, with the exceptions as noted in the conditions of approval and
recommend approval of the proposed project to the Planning Commission and City
Council in accordance with the draft resolution.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Mr. Dan Malcolm with Rancho Broadway Partners thanked the Committee for their earlier
feedback from the previous preliminary meeting on June 3'd, which provided them with
direction and focus so that they could go back and revise the product. Mr. Malcolm
believed when you looked at the overall scheme between the new proposed building and
the existing one they now had a product that provided continuity between the two
buildings.
Mr. Malcolm stated with regard to the signage, as was discussed in the previous meeting,
the existing pylon monument signs are the subject of the leases with the tenants
Everything $5 and Big Lots (formerly PicNSave). He further stated that staff had made a
lot of comparisons between their project and the Target remodel going on next-door with
some of the signage issues that were going on with the Target store renovation.
JIHOMEIPLAN NINGIROSEMARIEIDRCIMINB-19-02
I'f-
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-4-
DRAFT
Auqust 19. 2002
Mr. Malcolm stated that the difference between the Target renovation and their project is
that their project is not tenant driven in terms of the existing tenants; they were bringing in
new tenants to the site such as Starbucks and some other tenants. The existing pylon
signs were the contractual benefit of Big Lots (PicNSave) and Everything $5. Mr. Malcom
stated as a landlord they had no contractual right to request the removal of the signs,
which would be a direct violation of the current leases. He asked that the Committee
consider this when imposing conditions on this project, and not to impose a condition on
them that they, as landlords, do not have contractual right to oblige.
With respect to the landscaping, Mr. Malcom stated they had added roughly 3,400 percent
more landscaping than what is currently on site. He asked that the Committee remember
again that the original intent of this project was for a 6,600 sq. ft. satellite building. In
actuality the project has turned into a remodel of the entire shopping center including
landscaping. Concerning staff's recommendation to incorporate tree wells within the
parking lot, Mr. Malcom stated they were really at their maximum in terms of cost for any
additional landscaping treatment He requested that the Committee delete this
requirement from the conditions of approval. Mr. Malcolm further stated that the architect,
Mr. Ziebarth, would go through specifics of the project and what they were proposing.
Mr. John Ziebarth, with Ziebarth Associates, the architect for the project (800 W. Ivy
Street, San Diego, CA) stated they had taken the Committee comments and suggestions
from the previous meeting and incorporated as many as they could into this project and
the existing building which were as follows:
. On the existing facility the architect featured horizontal planes on the building with
a horizontal band going across it. They incorporated that element on to the new
proposed building.
. In order to integrate the existing structure with the new one and to give relief to the
mass of the existing building they added an arched tower element above the
Everything $5 store entry. In addition, they added a perforated stainless steel metal
panel that would be attached to the structure below the arched tower. A horizontal
green band was added to the building, and the wood fascia was stuccoed and
painted to match the colors of the new building.
. A masonry wainscot was introduced to the new building at the bottom of the
columns and pilaster, as well as the bottom of the building, to help introduce some
of the textural elements from the existing building.
. The planned sign program for the project would also serve the existing building.
With the exception of Big Lots, who had already been permitted for their current
wall signage, the other tenants would have to have signs constructed of individual
channel letters and areas that were allowed in the municipal code as well as the
sign program.
J :IH OMEIP LAN N I NGIROS EMARIEIDR CIMI N8-19-02
()
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-5-
OR AFT
Auaust 19. 2002
COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS:
Chair Aguilar asked the applicant to clarify if the contractual tenant agreement between
Big Lots and Everything $5 was only for the pole signs, or if it included the wall signs as
well. Chair Aguilar also asked if the city was a party to that agreement.
Mr. Malcolm responded it was only for pole signs, but in regard to the tenant, Big Lots, he
was not sure if it also included the wall signs because they had been a tenant for 25 years.
For the tenant, Everything $5, because they did not have any wall signs when they
originally signed the lease, the applicant had retained the right to change their sign age
once the planned sign program went into effect. Mr. Malcolm stated this was a separate
from the issue of the pylon signs, where both of these tenants as part of the original lease,
negotiated the right to the existing pylon signs. The city was not a party to the contractual
agreement.
Chair Aguilar stated without legal representation to refer to she was not sure if those
contractual agreements between the tenants would be valid, if the city were not a part of
the contractual agreement. She believed that if the city required the landowner to conform
to the ordinance, the landowner would have to comply.
Mr. Malcolm stated he understood Chair Aguilar's point, but as a landlord in this case they
did not have a contractual right to make the tenants remove those pole signs. If the
Committee were to make that a requirement of the conditions of approval, they would not
do the project, which would be a shame because they felt they had a quality project to
offer the City of Chula Vista.
Mr. John Schmit, Principal Planner interjected that this was not the final decision point on
this project, the Precise Plan will be going on to the Planning Commission and City
Council for approval. The DRC could make any recommendation that they desired, but
the final decision making authority would come at a later date, at which time their would be
legal counsel to go over the issues.
Chair Aguilar asked staff to clarify under "wall signs" the statement regarding "the proposal
to include an unlimited sign board area along the face of the in-line shopping center
building between the southerly edge to the "Everything $5" sign and from the "Everything
$5" sign to the "payless Shoe Source" sign should not be granted, or should be limited to a
certain width or bay area to eliminate potential sign clutter".
Mr. Phelps stated based on the applicants proposed sign program, the wall sign board
area for potential future tenants appeared to be unlimited and the applicant did not provide
specific bay areas or dimensions as recommended in Condition F1 d of the draft resolution.
The applicant was currently proposing that the sign area be based on 1 square foot per
lineal foot.
Staff further stated that the sign plan program as currently shown, does not clearly
delineate the sign area where any potential new tenants would be located on the existing
building, if the Everything $5 store were to terminate its lease, and that area was
subdivided. There could be potential new tenants between Payless Shoes, the existing
Everything $5 sign as well as on either side of it which could create sign clutter if there
were no limitations on the width and area of the signs.
J:IHOMEIP LAN NINGIR os EMARI EIDR C\MIN8-19-02
((P
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-6-
DRAFT
Auqust 19. 2002
Chair Aguilar asked if the applicant intended to have additional signage located in those
areas.
Mr. Ziebarth stated they would only have signage if there were any new tenants.
Chair Aguilar asked if it was staff's position that the DRC not approve the sign program
without the signboard area being delineated, or if it should be brought back to the
Committee when a new tenant comes along.
Mr. Phelps stated they could do it by way of each applicant coming in and proposing a
signboard area or they could actually have a limited signboard area.
Chair Aguilar asked the applicant if what they currently wanted was an unlimited signboard
area.
Mr. Ziebarth stated they were willing to limit the height and limit the area per tenant, just as
it was stated in the zoning code, they just did not want to delineate the tenant space in the
building.
Chair Aguilar felt there were three issues that the committee needed to discuss which
were as follows:
1. The revised architectural plans.
2. The landscaping with regard to reducing the perimeter landscaping from 15-ft to
10ft., and the tree wells within the parking space itself as opposed to just the ends
of the aisles.
3. The signage issues.
The Committee agreed that the applicant had responded to their concerns and made
significant changes to the architecture of the new building to integrate it with the existing
structure.
With regard to the landscaping issues the Committee agreed that reducing the setback
requirement on the frontage of the property from 15-ft. to 10-ft. was acceptable especially
because Target had been granted the same landscape buffer reduction. Member Alberdi
understood the cost implications to the applicant with regard to adding the tree wells, but
believed that the applicant should follow the Design Manual, which states providing a tree
well within every 8 to 10 parking space areas. Without the tree wells, Member Alberdi felt
that the landscape in the parking area would only look halfway completed.
Chair Aguilar understood Member Alberdi's point regarding the tree wells, but felt the
applicant had gone to great lengths to provide a lot of improvements on the back of a very
small bUilding and she would be agreeable to deleting the tree wells. Vice Chair Araiza
concurred with Chair Aguilar.
Member Alberdi believed that the DRC should recommend to the Planning Commission
and City Council, that the tree wells should be added to the parking area, if any future
modifications to the center were done. Chair Aguilar agreed and said it could be done as
advice to the planning staff and other discretionary bodies.
J:IHOME\PLAN NINGlROSEMARIE\DRCIMIN8-19-02
/7
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-7-
DRAFT
Auqust 19. 2002
The Committee discussed the pole sign issue. They all agreed that there should be only
one sign allowed. Vice Chair Araiza thought the signs that were currently in the center
were not consistent with the proposed remodel and the applicant should consider an
alternate sign. Vice Chair Araiza preferred to see a monument sign, but felt that the
architect should make the suggestion of what type of sign would work better with his
design and the shopping center. Member Alberdi believed that a monument sign would be
more compatible with the center instead of a pylon sign.
Chair Aguilar stated that in the staff report staff was recommending that the overall height
of the sign be reduced to a maximum of 35-ft in height, which was consistent with the
zoning and Montgomery Specific Plan.
Vice Chair Araiza asked the applicant for the height of the proposed building. The
applicant responded at the highest point of the proposed new building it would be 25-ft. to
26-ft. and on the existing building it would be closer to 30-ft.
Chair Aguilar asked Vice Chair Araiza if a pylon sign would be agreeable to him if it were
under 35-ft. or less and had an appropriate design. She also asked if the Committee
would want to have the applicant come back to the DRC with the revised sign design.
Vice Chair Araiza responded that the sign should relate in height to the existing buildings
maybe between a 25-ft. to 30-ft. maximum.
The Committee Members agreed that the applicant should definitely come back with the
revised sign design to the DRC for their final review and approval.
With regard to the wall signs, Chair Aguilar stated that the issue presented was on how
much, if any, they wanted to limit the wall sign area on the front of the shopping center.
Mr. Ziebarth stated in their Planned Sign Program there were limits placed on how much
sign area an applicant could have (similar to what is in the code) it was based on the linear
frontage of the tenant space multiplied by 70% of linear square footage.
Member Alberdi stated if that were the case then the signage issue would be resolved.
Vice Chair Araiza stated that the 70% restriction was not noted on the planned sign
program.
Mr. Ziebarth responded that it was an oversight and should have been included in the
planned sign program and would be added. He further stated they wanted to create a
comprehensive sign plan that would allow staff to monitor the signs, while providing them
the flexibility for future tenant spaces to go into the building.
Chair Aguilar stated if the applicant were willing to add the 70% restriction to the sign
program she would be agreeable to approving it.
MSC (Aguilar/Araiza) (3-0-1-1) to recommend approval of PCM-02-22 and PSP-03-01
to the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the draft
resolution and the following modifications:
J:\HOMEIPLANNINGlROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN8-19-02 (f
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-8-
DRAFT
Auaust 19. 2002
Condition F1 b. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of
approval. The planting and irrigation shall be revised in conformance with the
revised conceptual landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the City
Landscape Architect prior to issuance of building permit.
Condition F1d. Provide revisions to the planned sign program. A revised sign
program shall be provided incorporating one new pylon sign not to exceed 32-1/2 ft.
in height, or a monument sign to replace the existing freestanding pole signs. The
comprehensive signage program shall be revised to include a note to the effect that
each potential future tenant signage shall be limited to 70% of the linear frontage of
their space. Motion carried with Member Mestler abstaining.
J :IHOMEIPLAN N I NGlROS EMAR I EID R C\MI N8-19.02
(1
-.-.--.....,-..... .'~' '. ..-- ',------ ---.---.--.".
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0t:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A PRECISE PLAN,
PCM-02-22 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, PSP-03-0t, FOR A 6,600-SQ. FT.
SATELLITE RETAIL BUILDING IN AN EXISTING IN-LINE RETAIL
SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT t2tO BROADWAY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program were filed with
the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April IS, 2002 and August 12, 2002 respectively by John
Ziebarth and Associates, "(Applicant)"; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to develop a 6.600-sq. ft. satellite retail building in an
existing in-line shopping center located at 1210 Broadway; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposals are exempt ITom the
California Environmental Quality Act as Class 3 and Class II exemptions for small new structures and on-
premise signs respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Precise Plan and Planned
Sign Program appeal 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-ft. 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 advertised, September 25, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council' Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the
public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the Precise Plan PCM-02-22 and Planned Sign Program PSP-03-01
in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft City
Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CllliLA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 25th day of September, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
<::>LV
J:IPLANNING\HAROLDlREsOLUTlONsIPCRESOPCM-02-22&PSP_03_01.DOC
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING PRECISE PLAN ZONING
PERMIT PCM-02-22, TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 6,600-SQ. FT.
SATELLITE RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN THE EXISTING IN-
LINE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT ]210 BROADWAY.
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose
of general description is located at 1210 Broadway ("Project Site"); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2002 a duly verified application for a precise plan zoning
permit (PCM-02-22) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by John
Ziebarth for Rancho Broadway L TD ("Applicant"); and
3. Project Description; Application for Precise Plan Zoning Permit
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests to develop a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building
within an existing in-line shopping center with some deviations from the CCP zoning and
the Montgomery Specific Plan, which can be provided as part of a Precise Plan for the
subject property and which may be given to development projects "characterized by
outstanding planning or urban design" if approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council on the site ("Project"); and
4. Design Review Committee Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the
project on August 19, 2002 and voted X - X - X - X recommending that the Planning
Commission approve the project; and
5. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project
on September _, 2002 and voted X - X - X - X recommending that the City Council
approve the project in accordance with Resolution PCM-02-22; and
6. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October ,2002; to receive the
~
Resolution No.
Page 2
recommendation' of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard
to the same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on September _, 2002 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project was exempt ITom the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 exemption for small new
structures. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution PCM-02-22
including the exemption from CEQA on September -' 2002 recommending that the City
Council approve the Project.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator and the Planning Commission was reached in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
E. PRECISE PLAN ZONING PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of a precise plan zoning permit, as
hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made.
1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The issuance of a precise plan zoning permit will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The precise plan will
enable the development to provide an outdoor seating area without increasing the
required parking spaces beyond what would be required for the entire shopping
center retail floor area and indoor restaurant seating. The precise plan will also
~
Resolution No.
Page 3
allow for a reduction in the IS-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford
Street as required in the Montgomery Specific Plan to a IO-ft. landscape buffer.
The redevelopment of the shopping center can be considered as one
"characterized by outstanding planning or urban design" in that the site plan and
architecture will of the shopping center will be significantly improved, and will
enhance and benefit the surrounding community and general vicinity. There will
be improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, landscape elements, and
architectural elements and features shared between the new satellite building and
the existing in-line shopping center building. The in-line shopping center
building will receive revised fayade treatment and wall signage. A more modern
and subdued pole sign will be required if desired as a condition of approval.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying
district as set forth in Section 19.56.041.
Section 19.56.041 sets out four principles, one of which must be applicable to the
proposed project before the Precise Plan modifying district may be applied.
Based upon the facts presented, Section 19.56.041(C) would apply. This states
that the basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and
proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. By strict
interpretation, additional parking would be required for the outdoor seating area
per the Zoning Code, and a IS-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford
Street would be required as set forth in the Montgomery Specific Plan. In order to
provide some flexibility to these requirements, a precise plan as set forth in the
Zoning Code is the zoning permit mechanism being utilized to provide the
required review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning
requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose
and application of the P precise plan modifying district.
The only exceptions to be granted which would deviate from the underlying
zoning requirements is the discounting of the outdoor seating against the typical
parking requirements, and the reduction in the required landscape buffer along
Broadway and Oxford Street from IS-ft. to 10-ft. These deviation are
appropriate because a high parking standard is already being utilized for retail
floor area (I :200-sq. ft. ratio) and forrestaurants (I :2.5 seat ratio), and the amount
of outdoor seating request is not exorbitant as part of a smaller use and could be
considered negligible. The impact of allowing for a reduction in the landscape
buffer from IS-ft. to lO-ft. is lessened by the fact that it will match with the 10-ft.
landscape buffer of the adjacent shopping center (Target), and that there exist
significant landscaping within the adjacent right-of-ways, such as palm trees
along Broadway, and a 10-ft. planter area along Oxford Street. The landscape
planter on the corner is IS-ft. surrounding the Pizza Hut. On site, the parking lot
will possess landscape aisle ends and tree wells will be required as a condition of
approval.
~
Resolution No. Page 4
4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted
policies of the city.
Approval of the Precise Plan-Zoning Permit will be in substantial conformance
with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial Retail and the
Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Mercantile and Office
Commercial. The flexibility requested with regards to parking and landscaping
can be provided for within the Precise Plan and is allowed for by the Montgomery
Specific Plan for developments "characterized by outstanding planning or urban
design," as determined by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Precise Plan Zoning Permit PCM-02-22 subject to the
following conditions whereby the Applicant and/or property owners shall:
t. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use
of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the
following requirements:
Planning and Bui/ding Department Conditions:
a. Provide revised plans and elevations incorporating all conditions of approval. The
revised plans and elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit.
b. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The
planting and irrigation shall be revised in conformance with the revised conceptual
landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect prior
to issuance of building permit.
c. A water management plan shall be prepared and submitted with the conceptual
landscape plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance of
building permit.
d. Provide revisions to the planned sign program. A revised sign program shall be
provided incorporating one new pylon not to exceed 32-Y2 ft. in height, or a
monument sign to replace the existing freestanding pole signs. The comprehensive
signage program shall be revised to include a note to the effect that each potential
future tenant signage shall be limited to 70% of the linear frontage of their space.
e. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section
17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. A lighting plan shall be provided that includes
details showing that the proposed lighting shall be shielded to remove any glare from
;2y
Resolution No.
Page 5
adjacent properties, and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director.
f A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces.
This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits.
Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
g. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Precise Plan
Zoning Permit. Building Plans shall comply with 1998 Building, Mechanical,
Plumbing, and National Electrical Code article 500. Building shall comply with
handicapped accessibility requirements and 200 I Title 24 energy requirements.
Openings are required to be fire protected ifless than 10- ft. from a property line. One
hour rated walls are required when less than 20-ft. from a property line.
Resource Recycling and Con.~ervation Coordinator Conditions:
h. Commercial properties shall have trash enclosures, bins, or carts that meet the design
specifications of the City Conservation Coordinator. The locations and orientation of
storage bins and dumpsters must be pre-approved by the City franchise trash hauling
company. Provide sufficient space for designated recyclables. The applicant shall
contact the City Conservation Coordinator at 691-5122.
Fire Department Conditions:
1. Obtain the necessary permits from the Fire Department. Provide the address on the
satellite building visible from Broadway. Provide a minimum rated fire extinguisher
(2A-IOBC) per 75-ft. of travel distance. A fire hydrant may be required as part of the
building permit review requirements. If a fire sprinkler system is desired, the plans
must be provided prior to issuance of building permit.
Public Works Department Conditions:
J. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of
building permits. Applicant shall pay all Engineering Division fees including but not
limited to sewer capacity and connections, development impact for public facilities,
and traffic signal fees prior to issuance of building permits.
k. The proposed freestanding pylon or monument signs shall require review and
approval by traffic engineering to ensure that sight visibility entering and exiting the
property is maintained The location of signs shall be reviewed prior to issuance of
building permits
I. The satellite building and reconfiguration of the parking lot and landscape islands
shall be designed such that drainage flows away from the satellite building and away
~s-
Resolution No. Page 6
from neighboring structures. The drainage patterns shall be reviewed pnor to
issuance of building permits
m. A geotechnical investigation/soils study will be required along with the improvement
plans to provide information addressing the erosion potential of the site as well as
foundation recommendations prior to issuance of building permits.
n. The parking lot design shall be for two-way traffic flow. Show the typical
dimensions for aisle width, stall to curb, stall width, and parking stall angle.
Appropriate markings and signage shall be added to direct traffic flow at each aisle.
The design shall incorporate ADA requirements for parking and accessibility. The
parking plan shall be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits.
o. According to the NPDES Permit, Order No. 2001-01, the project is a pnonty
development project, and it is required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria of the Permit. In
addition, the project is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
prevent pollution of the storm drainage systems, both during and after construction.
Adjacent storm drain inlets shall be protected at all times during construction of the
new building and improvements. A drainage study will be required along with the
improvement plans and include information addressing the measures that will be
implemented to reduce storm water runoff to pre-development flow rates at the outlet
of the site. The drainage study shall be provided for review prior to issuance of
building permits.
p. Identify and clearly label the existing sewer and the proposed sewer lines that will
serve the project, and show the connection to the existing sewer line on the required
improvement plans to be provided for review prior to issuance of building permits.
Police Department Conditions:
q. The security lighting fixtures shall use low wattage bulbs. The lighting for the
signage and interior nightlights shall be independently wired so that they can be
independently used. This will aid in complying with the Governor's Executive Order
D-19-01.
r. Obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department for
specific recommendations on access control, surveillance detection, and police
response. In addition, training of management and employees in security procedures
and crime prevention shall coincide with the commencement of operations. The
Crime Prevention Unit should be contacted at 691-5127 for more information.
Other Conditions:
s. Applicant shall contact the Chula Vista Fire Department about required fire flow
requirements and submit a letter to the Sweetwater Authority stating the
requirements The Authority will determine if there is a need for new or substantial
c:.J~
--~'.'-'--~'----"-'-'_'~--._----_._---,--,_..__._..,.-.-
Resolution No.
Page 7
alteration to the eXistIng water systems, as well as the availability of water for
operational and fire protection purposes.
t. Applicant shall pay all required fees of the Sweetwater Union High School District
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District prior to issuance of building permit.
2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the following
reqnirements shall be met:
a. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,
landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the
conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the Montgomery Specific Plan.
b. Prior to any use of the project site and/or business activity being commenced thereon,
all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director.
c. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the
approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner.
d. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.,
shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a
combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
e. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans.
f A fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute for duration of two (2) hours must be
provided. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire
Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor.
g. Applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police
Department for specific recommendations on access control, surveillance detection,
and police response prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
h. The Precise Plan approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or the
approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval,
unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date.
3. The following on-going condition shall apply to the snbject property as long as it
relies upon this approval.
~7
Resolution No.
Page 8
a. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of
the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
b. Buildings and Landscaping shall be maintained according to the approved plans
unless modifications are approved by the City of Chula Vista.
c. This Precise Plan 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 Permit
tee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal
operation of the use permitted, be expected to economicall y recover.
d. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the
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. 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.
G. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the Agency's
secretary. Failure to return said document to the Agency's secretary shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the Agency's office and known as document No. .
Signature of Property Owner
Date
~f
Resolution No.
Page 9
Signature of Representative
Date
H. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
1. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this
resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio
Presented by
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this _ day of October, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Shirley Horton
Mayor
~<j
- - ----_._-_._--,.._---._..__._~_."~~_.----_....."'_...- -.-.
Resolution No.
ATTEST:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
Page 10
I, Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning & Building Department of the City of
Chula Vista, California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of Resolution No. and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated: October _, 2002
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
J:\PLANNINGIHAROLDlREsOLUTIONSICCRESOPCM-02-22.DOC
30
..
ZIEBARTH
ASSOCIATES
~._-~-_._,-------
~
, :~ !~.i
-.____.,::___~_=__.:=.....' 1:,
TRANSMITTAL
Sf=P _ ~ ~",r}
-~',",:"
i
,:1
~":
----
To:
Harold Phelps! John Schmitz,
From: John Ziebarth
City of Chula Vista Planning
.;
-.----------.
Fax: (619) 409-5861
Pages: 4
Phone:
Date: 9/5/02
Re:
Comprehensive Sign Plan Appeal
Project: Broadway & Oxford
Cc: Michel Kucinski 858-794-5317 Dan Malcclm 858-453-9965
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment ! Please Reply
o Please Recycle
Attached are a copy of our appeal application and a letter stating our position regarding the appeal and the legality of
the Decision/ reccmmendation of the Design Review Committee. Please call to discuss.
81
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
APPEAL FORM
Date Received
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
Case No:
Appeal from the decision of: ____Zoning ____Planning -ll-Design Review
Administrator Commission Committee
Name of
Appellant: RAtJeHO B/f",AOw-'\ '7'
Home Address
1'1"'0"3 VIA LoA
Phone (8~e) -'9'1-531'
,,~()A . OfL ""AIf. cA '1201"1
, ,.
Business Address SAME"
cDtvTAc.7 : .)T.;l1I/ ;Z ,~8111l711 J z ,c8A~7/1 A1foc/A7'C! (r) "1'1,. 2 3J-~ '1:>0 (~)~19'23!.(, Y'I"
g~ w. IVY ST. ./iE, :SA'" 0''-6,0, cA. 921D 1
project Address SoU-rHWn-r co,l.NEI!- D~ 81C~/ttJflVA7'#to.r~~
project Description c..p1'11'~€"HENfJ Vc 5/61\/ ~t..4Al
(Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc)
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are
appealing. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
!>5E A77AeHE/) L € 77'1!:?e
elL c!? .A/- LG .44iDlT
/Signat1lfe of Appellant
'7/5"~2.
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not Write In this Space
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission
City Council
on
Planning Commission Secretary
city Clerk
Rev. 6/96
3.J...
I
.4V
~0'-'
ZIEBARTH ASSOCIATES.
September 5. 2002
Harold Phelps
Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Re: PCM-02-22 Big Lot (Pic 'N' Save) Shopping Center Expansion, 1210 Broadway.
APN 618-280-21,20-Responses to City Assessment Letter
ZA Project No. 22020
Dear Harold
Per your request, we are submitting the appeal form for the decision of the Design Review
Committee regarding the removal of the pylon signs. Mr. Malcolm on behalf of the applicant
pointed out that the applicant has a contractual obligation to his tenants regarding their placement
on those pylon signs. The Design Review Committee noted that they did not have legal council
to advise them as to what they could require of the applicant Staff informed them that they
would not be the final determining body with respect to this issue. It was our interpretation that
they, therefore, felt that they were simply making a recommendation of their desires concerning
the pylon signs. It was our impression that since it was a recommendation an appeal would not
be required. We apologize for any misunderstanding on our part. We hope that the Design
Review Committee did not base their decision on that same misunderstanding. If they had
realized that they were the final decision body, I am not sure that they would have taken that
action without advise of council.
As was expressed at the hearing, Big Lot and Everything 5 are not a party to this application.
A requirement to remove the existing pylon sign could most likely kill the project The applicant
is spending a grcat deal of money to clean up the site with additional landscaping, a new
building, revised architectural upgrade to the existing building, and a comprehensive wall sign
program. It is highly debatable that it is worth it to incur the cost of new pylon signage and the
probable legal cost to renege on a portion of his lease agreement with these tenants.
In review of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding Non Conforming Signage, it is
questionable whether the Design Review Committee has the tight to require these signs to be
removed at this time. Section 19.60.110 states that you have 15 years from the date of the
ordinance (9/92) to be required to remove the sign. The applicant has the right to appeal for an
extension of that time.
ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING
800 W Ivy ST SUITE E SAN DIEGO CA 92 101 PHONE 6 I 9 233 6450 FAX 6 I 9 233 6449
33
Section 19.60.120 describes when the removal ot'the sign can be required.
A. AllY chall~e illllse of the premise identified hy the nOllcullfi)fmill~ siX//. AllY change
ill/alld IIse which reqllires the assessment of a differentlalld IIse code IIlImher as
defined in the standard land IIse code hook prepared hy San /)ie~o COllllty daled
.III~V, 1')68, illeludillg such amelldmellts as may he made from time 10 time, shall
cOllslilllle a chan~e in/and usefi)r Ihe {Jwpose of sign conformance,
R. /f allY changes. modifications or alterations are performed on sllch a noncOJ!forming
sign that require the issuance o/a hllildillg permit. said sig1l shall he reqlllred 10 Jitl/y
coliform to all standard~ and reglllaliolls ill effecl at the time of Ihe request for such
permit.
Based on Sections 19.60.110 and 19.60.120 the decision! recommendation of the Design Review
Committee is in violation of these municipal code sections. Per Section 19.60.110 the signs shall
remain until September of2007 unless an extension of time is granted by the city council.
Section 19.60.120 Subsection A does not require modification, since no land use changes have
been requested for the tenants identified on the non conforming signs. Per discussion with the
building department. a building permit is not required to reface a sign for a tenant. Thus
Subsection B would not require a modification.
It is thus our contention that the recommendation! decision of the Design Review Committee in
its current language is a violation of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Our appeal is being
requested pending resolution of the legality of the Design Review Committee's action.
Regardless, we request that this project be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission
hearing, which we understand to be September 24, 2002.
Respectfully,
~~
cc: John SchmitZ! Chula Vista Planning
Michel Kucinski
Dan Malcolm
3y>
C.Y. I'Li\N~lNL & IJL1UJI1\L
'i!J u"...
OB/OBI02 17: 35 FAX
-
~M.c-
:--'f' _
CITY OF CHULA \'ISTA
PLA)o.'?'I!'G &. BUILDING DE?
"276 Fout1h Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
~!ED\YI
D SIGN PROGRAM
APPLICA TJON FORM
GTYQf
CHUlA, VlSIA
APPLICANT INFORMATION
\1i~ ~ 6("'~6t
e:sre-lq4-5~~
'l)G( Md.'- rA Q7./")l4
Agent
Contractor
OWNER OR PROPERTY lVI.ANAGER APPROVAL IS REQURlED
~ . VOWNER """""--MANAGER
DATE: ~Ti:TL4""3-
Contractor Name: WC, ~1=c..[1=-("") AI Title;, I(M"E::
Contractor Address:
Phone:
License #:
I PROPERTY INFORMATION
Commercial/Business Center Name: B ro LV V'
Business/Center Location: Sc,Jh W~ (b,-T'lev- ~ O'l-::f,.,.- d.<f- /2.rN'..J LIIC>'7 . Ch,,~ I/~t....
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): (O\~ - ,,;2BO -;) \ - 00
Property Size: --!,ql......BJh <;, r F:
Zone: cc..... General Plan:
Redevelopment Area: SPA or Specific Plan:
1 I
Lot frontageS'30 0 I.IJ 'of Building Frontage:
'F~uh~!$H>qdw-,:PJ~~ff..T 5.01 I
I NEIA.I5t.C>'. So'
I '8>1C-fl.:Q7~~ 3J~ '~f'r"tltl...., "'....
I SIGN INFORMATION
'114' fI
.,
h~V\ +'DD rvtev-1
Facing Street~.-d (~p., ft.
Facing Parking: ~ 71.
~c:\,,~tz_P~. 3.3'f .t(.
Please give a general description of the nurnber and types of signs that are proposed jor the overall canter.
A site plan and building elevations must be provided with details of this information as part oj your
application. See the Application Checklist for further requirements.
{(Jaut...f7 ..f.-J _s.....t1:.f/a<;S{CAJo...~.....,.f-.'~.~ 'J_ 5j..,ri...../.. k.c,o~ ((......'*4-;# c. - T.,. ",,,,,,..i.
" V _ t, - -
~)f4LcT "~iCt./II QVAlJrtr"f'€J1=!. PA'1'tE-JS5Hc:>D"t!)..".,,-t;~.~!- ~r~,'~~ ~d!
. PI&-'" S~""s. (f}. t!fc8 - Rosa 111 h~~f-t1Q""i;, &.-~:~ZJor:.~.~~,...,~r' ;;) I ." ~I <:.~ '..g;
STAFF use: a~d f~s.~Tt;;,;, (.:::(c.....0--. 5~ p~ roJ ItJ",j S<J~A(tTT~"::> .
Case #: ,c( f -;"'"i'CI ., --' Project Planner: Ph c: I p5
Filing Date: ~111ID2. 3y: &.. ProjAcct#: BH-trfrf)
Deposit Acct #: DC - 3 7&
FORM 328 (REV 4/02)
ccf'
,'vI
.30""
---
..
.-'-
-
'__""_'-J _"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT DUE
PLANNING DIVISION
Date:
08-12-2002
Case Number:
PSP-03-01
Applicant:
RANCHO BROADWAY
Project Title:
Rancho Broadway Center
Location:
/2/<.) K(;J/V':7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT TYPE:
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, NEW
AMOUNT:
$350.00
PROJ ACCT#:
DQ#:
BH-070
876
ACCT#:
00892-2721/01090876
.800000
TRANS CODE: 9501
Total Fee:
$350.00
Prepared by:
BRIANCA
cc: Applicant
Finance Operations
3?
~{f?
~ ....._ : CITY OF CHULA VISTA
..0:: -.. - : Plarming & Building Department
- - - -
01Y OF 276 Fourth Avenue
CHUlA VISTA (619)691-5101
II TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED (Check One)
u Conditional Use Permit
Development Processing
Application Form - Type A
Page One
I,
o Variance
(staff use onlY) Case No.: '" ~ M-O'),-"'~
Filing Date: 4--15 -'O~ By: 1-\
Ass:gned Planner: H (1M:> kL ~ ~S
Receipt No.: 0,," - coe;. ~O~ cD .
Project Acct: A C,.- ~ ,>7 -:: ?
Deposit Acct: ~ 3- T
Related Cases: II I It.
o ZA 0 Public Hearing
o Design Review
o Special Land Use Permit (Redevelopment Areas Only)
P Miscellanecus: _Fe. E CA 'S E: P (. ~ N
II APPLICANT INFORMATION
IApplicant Name
,
I RANC.llo BR...oA/JI"vAy, L.7()
!APPlicant Address.=i. '
: 3to ",f'h Arc 2..7 SA;J {)/EGO, c.4
IApplicant's Interest in Property
I 2:r Own u Lease 0 In Escrow
,
I
jArchiiect/Agent
i ZIE:..SAIZT-W AS<)OC.I~-n::.<;
!Architect/Agent Address
iSOOW.Tv'1 ":)T. <SUITE 1= ~DlEGocA 9-z.\OI
II GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types)
Iproject Name G ~oo :>f" €XI"AN~/O"'; @ , Proposed Use
, ,
BtDA/1IvAY ~ <7 roliW IC'AI ,SA!lG C.t:/V7Ci!. COI'1/>1 c
General Description of Proposed Project
! (Please use Appendix A to provide a full description and justification for the project) 'fie c e:N7'ai
I ACiJ A r;,,"OO~F Ff.E'et7'AiYhA/6) C-.:>MMa.:"Af- 8Uld)//oIC ~ PIG N fA .
I uPG,ILAtJc LA/VtJ5cAP~. Rl:qr.J~r j)/;'vIA7I'oN ..N I.-A/V/)f<:"'''e SE7'dAc.K. ,1,"'0 l'etc.c,v7A4€'
I _~F L",/VtJfcAl't 0/11 ~j'7E. ($~ A7'7'";tfC/Ifa) J';S7rh.:AP"AI.
I
I' Has a representative attended a Pre-Application Conference to discuss this project? YE}'
If so, what was the date? 3;'l.v6? Pre-App No.:
IL SITBJF:.CT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types)
Location/Street Address
1210 8~oAOvft.'( wAY"
Assessors Parcel No, 2.../
vIe -z~o-
~ (6 - 2.. ~ - 2.0
curren enera an signa Ion
I'1ON1"~ot<1c:~Y 5f?gtRc PL AN
urren an se
Ii
i Phone No.
! g 59 . 79'r" 5 "]; \0
9uD$' -Sg.:;'I
If applicant is not owner, owners cuthorization
u Option to purchase is required to process request. See signature
::m poge Two,
! Phone No.
(.,. 1 '1
'255 G<1-S0
II
oXFo!?P 501/711 wa7
Total Acreage
1/.7"'5 + ,08
eSlgn Ion
c ol2A1~
Redevelopment Area (tl applicable)
I!
I
,
,
i ann
I tV A-
Ils this in Montgomery S.P.?
, y~
cc.
C:!?I'1.M€'~C./AL
FORM A-OEV PL (PAGE 1 or 2)
37
12/99
~ ~ rc..
:-~ :
~.,-- =
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
rnv OF
CHULA VISTA
I PROPOSED PROJECT (all types)
Type of Use Proposed
o Residential I!t Comm. 0 Ind. o Other
Development Processing
Application Form
Page Two
(staff use onlv1
Case No.:
I
Landscape Coverage (% of Lot) "1 %
Building Coverage (% of Lot) -Z 5 , 5 %
I RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Type of Dwelling Unit(s)
i Number of Lots
I
No. of Dwelling Units
i
I
Proposed
Existing
uensl1y luus/acre)
1 BR
2BR
3+BR
Total
I MOXImum Building Helgm
I
!
II
Minimum Lot Size Average LOT :>Ize
Parking Soaces
Total
Off-street Type of Parking ISlZe: whether covered)
Required by Code:
i Provided:
I Open Space Description (Acres each of private, common. and landscaping)
[I NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
j\::>ross ~Ioor Area (ST) Proposed Existing
i 0;GOC"OSF. Li(" -Z2.eo Sf-
i Hours of Operation (Days & Hours)
! G::,,c.m / 11 p\"I
IAntiCipoted Total # Employees
i -~'/
IParking Spoces Required
I '304-
I # of Students/cnIlQr!3n lIT applicable)
I ,U /,4
I
I BUilding Height
24'--0"
I Max. # of Employees at anyone Time
'20
I Spoces Provided
I "3DS
Age OT sTuaems/cnllaren lIT applica~el
IV I P>
Print Applicant or Agent Name
Applicant or Agent Signature
Print Owner Name Owner Signature*
(Required if Applicant is not Owner)
* Letter of owner consent may be used in lieu of signature. 38'
FORM A-PAGE 2 OF 2
Type of parking [size)
C:.6i/J ?tlC-r ,'- "" I 1<. ISI--c:;"
S>i: (>t191J'V;) CJ "6")'> 1 "'\ '-0"
;:,eating capacITY
U4 @ SI,ll~'I3UQ::J;
Date
Date
11199
,.,_~%kI~.. Planning & Building Department
' ~ Planning Division - Development Processing
aw o~ 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
~.HUIA Vlb~ (619) 691-5101
Application Appendix "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: 6,60n _~¢ !~-~TT. ]~l~ f8 Pi~ n ~,mv~ (~nf~r--Broadwa
Y
and Oxford
APPLICANT NAME: w~n~'h~ ~.~-,.-,a,a,.,ay, T,TF1
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/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background
information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the
application. 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.
Description & Justification.
See Attached
Project Description and Justification:
6,600 sf Pad BIdg @ Pic 'N Save Center-Broadway & Oxford
The proposed project is to add a 6,600 sf freestanding pad building to the existing Pic'N Save
Center, which is at the southwest comer of Broadway and Oxford. Currently there is a main
building of 39,062 sf along the west side of the center and a free standing Pizza Hut of 4,464 sf
at the corner of Broadway and Oxford. The new building will be located in the parking lot at the
southeast corner. The two reciprocal access with the adjacent Target center will be maintained at
the building and out by Broadway. The building will provide a fresh look to the center. As a
part of this project, landscaping will be added along the street frontages and in the parking lot.
As part of the precise plan, the Applicant requests deviations from the Montgomery Specific
Plan and the zoning ordinance. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for 15 feet oflandscaping
and building setback along Broadway and Oxford. Currently there is nothing. In fact the
buildings are currently in the setback on Oxford. The project proposes to comply with the intent
of the landscape setback by expanding the existing 9 feet of landscaping on the city right-of-way
on Oxford with an additional 9 feet on site. This will create an effective 18 feet of landscape
buffer at the parking lot. On Broadway, the project proposes a 10 feet landscape buffer where
none currently exist In addition there is an existing row of palm trees along Broadway in the
public right-of-way. This would slightly exceed the landscape buffer in front of Target. (10 feet
on this project versus 8 to 9 feet at Target.) It would allow for the entire block to have a
cohesive landscape concept along Broadway. The project also proposes an outdoor landscaped
patio on the north side of the building as an amenity. Landscape planters are being added at the
end of the parking rows to protect the parked vehicles and soften the harsh asphalt parking field
that has no existing trees. There is 4,298 sf of new planters in the parking lot where none exist
today. Though the landscaping does not meet the strict code requirements, we justify the amount
of landscaping as follows:
I. This is an existing center and the cost of the improvements must be feasible with the
scope of the additional building area. The building area is being increased by 14 %.
The amount oflandscaping being added is 350%. Additional landscaping will create
an economic hardship on the project.
2. Additional perimeter landscaping along Broadway and Oxford would require
reduction in the parking and thus the parking would not support the project and there
would be no upgrade of the center.
3. The parking lot planting does not include tree wells in the parking rows. The parking
lot is increasing the amount of landscaping by 4,298% over what is existing. The cost
of saw cutting, installing irrigation and patching the asphalt to create a network of
irrigation through out the parking lot is not economically feasible for this small
project The applicant feels that the proposed landscaping is a vast improvement over
the existing condition and is reasonable in order to accommodate such a small project.
4. Granting of this deviation will be harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
regulations to create landscape buffers at the perimeter streets and soften the visual
impacts of parking lots with planters distributed throughout. There is no detriment to
the public health, safety, or welfare.
5. The proposed quantity oflandscaping will have a tremendous impact on the visual upgrade of this center.
~()
The parking lot configuration is designed to offer maximum capacity and to work with the
existing light fixtures. The ninety-degree parking occurs at the perimeters while the angled
parking occurs towards the inner field The angle parking with one-way drive aisles optimize the
space savings of the herringbone pattern.
We believe that this project is a good solution for the upgrading of this corner and the center.
The city will benefit as follows:
I. The city will obtain a landscape buffer along Broadway where currently there is none.
2. The landscape buffer along Oxford will be increased.
3. The harsh visual character of the parking lot will be softened by introducing
landscaping.
4. Additional goods and services will be provided to the neighborhood.
5. An outdoor patio will be added as an amenity.
6 The architectural character of the new building will enhance the streets cape along
Broadway. By placing a building closer to the street, the visual impact of the parking
lot from Broadway will be reduced.
This project will be a great addition and benefit to the city.
~I
04'11'02 THU 11:18 FAX 8585878912
DAN jL\LCOLM
141001
..~~ o. ~~ ____I_~ 0.~~.
~ ~ ....."..... ~ .... - .
~r.:-
"'.., .. .'':'1:0...
~-::::::: ';j
_~~."C'.':'_~ -..-=:"t;':_l.::_'~~'.o.,:
-
-
f...~_ar.: ~ !" 1"11.. s &atemenr at ~.__ <>f .:::-=..... OW11enIh9 Of rlllandallnterests. pa
~. -"--:'~ ~'.or. all maa...... ~ .",,~e .~ 4jce<HJ,-,..ry all:llOn gn the pan: of ~
..ouncI. . -'."119 COmll'llSSiClft. and aU aIhet' afIicial bodies. The """"'1Iing infom..dibo'l must be d~-..d'
I.ij;< !he. n;unes of all persons h8ving fin:andaJ infeteu Ira the pI'1:Ipe.ty Which is the ~ "'jact of ltIe
appflcarion or the contract. e.g., owner appIIcanr. CCIIItntcll:lr, subclAd)..dar. IrI8t1!ria! ""-..:_..
~.c.Jo.c.\ ~"'c.:,n.>k:i Q,,~j.:;ur~....sk-l . .
3(1"-" ~(_r L(~ <;1oHIr1!loo hr:J f"anoll Trl,ll+-
t)..",~ ~~ ~ '" ..:) Tt'....~
. ~ M....\\:~_ 7....\0".. 'U.b",-r-\-~ I ~e.IS..J ~c..
II' any p..iI....c. idb4if"1ed Punsuam to (1) above is a CM~ or parlnersrljp. list the names of all
individuals awning ....ore tt\8n 10% of IrIe sh_ irl1he ~ or ownil1g any ""'............. inteA!st
in!he~. . _~__...
'8t-lN 'Dvc. ........IO.D Q."I I'Al~\ kv~k:\ ~_..... ~C:''''1n
,12t;:MJ(,~ ~"\LI"""" t..TD: \)~"",). .r""-wn~::: J_~ \Y<tI\~..-
, I.A'I.. ~ /'1a'-' .n..w-LI'3 c.\...lcin... ,-J..nJ.s:+
If any penon" ide...rIIio:od p&n'lluant fD (1) ahotI8 is non-pnofit cwganizaliaft or a trust, .Iist Ih.. nsmes of
any ptlnaon serving lIS direcUIr of ItIIJ I1OlI-JIo otJ( organizati.". or as InI8tee or benetk:i1llY or !nISto~ of
theuLl!lt. rJlA
-(HE CllY OF CHULA. I/!!;T" O,!':C'~, ,== "'''''''-=-""C'--,
'-' -~-_..__:::~...,~::....~"..-::',...*
.......;:r~:::'~~ ~
Ha>Ie you had ftJore man $2SO warth Df businll$& rrar-~ wi(h any Inen1ber of the City staff,
Bowda. COmmiaions. CommlDaes. aIId Coll'lcil within the past MJve lTIonttls? Yes _ No ~
If yes. P'-:r~ India.. peraon($):
5 Please i4olt.Aify each iiIncf _IV pef!IDtI. inc:ludirlg any. agents. e........~ee!i. CCIfISuBanfs. or
itJdel:lertclent c:cntraclals who you ~ assigned tD r~ you tlefGte the City in O'Iis matter.
J """1'\ ~~I,....r-"""'-
~n. f'n~\r",\""
..
6. ~~ your offic8ra Of' a;enm. i'I thIiI ~. ~ rMre than $1,000 (r) a
in the CUm!rll ar preced'wtg electioon pe.iod? Yes _ No _ If yes, state which
CounciUlelTlbe~(a):
D Ie;
(NOTE'; ATTACH ADDmOItAi. PAGa,S AS NEr'CSSAR\I}
3{~ /0 1-
-; __U~<dr ~A"Y.IJJr."""" L../inII.tvr__ ...-.J--~.dD'~~4_fr_ ,.,.""J.~ ~A..4.~J>- i:II'It
ar .........~.~J 10___ "'--"""""~.~t1IftI/~"",':io-~,~"DIJw:"ptJ/II:tcGIA4IfL,.b.(~orllRJl
_I. .t/NRIPt(JII'~mt~G3GWlit."
SignaIme of
1J\\<..\c;.\ ~~it'\SF::., ~-_ -..~
PrIrC""~_d.....tract-Iapplica~ i,-~(
:11
Vol
O-l./11/U::' THU 11:HS FA~ 8S!j5~i8912
D.-I;\; )l-lLCOL'!
141 002
..."..+ D. ~~ I..,...:::~~:-...!,:: ?~"".
J~~S:'2::'-:~;
.--
')2 ~: -"?::~~~:
?.:s~
. '"
-- -"" --------
i.... __ +
_...U.
".P'P9m!X C
, ~ .:;; ~ ;0
D!":VElDPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREF--=r.rr
:---....~..~t:
A~n!'!! Address:
;-~"'?O oj r-etmrt:
Agr_ment Date:
O!!posit An".::.:r.t:
"A1'Jc..Ho
lWQ~1; V.o:>o...
~----...~ -"
R~~ L:ro_
~ ~""" ~ fkt",I mar
r::#it n'OJ'~
. Tiris.~ -("-Agr__nr) bet'Mlleen tile CIty of ChuIa \/lata. a ciI8Ii!:rad municipal
cotpOmtion rCityjand fhRforenamed ~": i far a -"'opn...lltpenna rApplicant"). effective as at
tile Agreement Date set forIh above. is 1IIIIde.... ..f~ellC6 to the fdbM.'!Ij faca:
: Wherea&, Applic:ant hu 'Or. ~. d to the City fDC a permit of \tie typII atoreJeferencecl ("PermJtj
which the City has required tQ be obIained as a amdifion to p&<1I.iaihs AcIcItic:ara to deVelop a parcel of
............-.t.t; 8nc1.
Whelea... It1e CIty will me, ~ - in crdIw to pn- 1" AId penuil: thrcIugh the vari_
~ and befcre the various baardI arid COIIUIIiaiona of the City ("'PM _..;. "" ServIces"); and.
~as the IIUlPCNiO fIf U1ia itgl'l!lelllent IS b;J ~ !:he City for all ......-.1 ft it will inc:ur in
cotInec:tion wiIh ~ the Pr lJ oft SoIIW::es;
Now, fI'Ien=fcre. the parties do IIenIby agree. in exdIange for \he m&m.al p.-uses herein contained.
8S fol/ollrs:
1. ~Lnt'!I DutytoPa".
Appficant chilli pay &II eI Cltys ~ incurnId in ~ Procsssing SIItviQes related to
'\pp,.....'1f..s Permit. !nc:IudIrIG all of City's direc and owrttead CD8t8 . oGh:d theIeto. ThIs d.ury of
\pplicant lIhall be rel'etrec:llD hen=in as "AppflCanrs Duly to Pay.'
1.1. AppIic:ant's DepDsit Duty.
A$ partial performance of .A~IIIIt's DoIt)I to Pay. Applicant shall d.~uit the amoum:
~ ("'Deposit").
U.1. City shaD ct...,_ its lawful "'_Incurred in PI'G'-1d.irI8 ~ing
Ser.io;;es ..a' ...t ~ p<l.nnr. Deposit. It, after !he CiCI'IdU8ion of fjI-- nina Appicant's
Petmit. any panian '" \he DeIIoslt IemaIns, City sMIJ TllCUm ~ balance to Applicant
1IIIithots inlentSt theI...... If. during the pm "Pts err ~_..'. PemUt.1he -.ni of
the Deposit be_u_IiI'JIto-..",". or is imm~ ~ tD become --..-.. in the
cpjnIon 01 the e CI!y. LIPOn no1Ice fJf _me ~ CIty. -"W~ 8IadI forIhovith po...",.
such additional -t;sit l1li City .".. _1_~~'1 .. ,. ...u" "'--ry 10 C<<IIinue
Pr_ino s.e.oi~u. The dlody at ~ II;t inIIfaIy ...._aft IInd to .'lIlI"lN!"4 said
deposit all herein requi~ lIbal be 1eI--.,. "/J" ,.Ii ~I& D,.1I&It DutY'.
eitYs Duty.
CIty 8ha11, upon the c:ondiIiCIfI ,tt18t ~'>t is no ill bIadI of ApplicRnt's Dc.I!y II;t Pay /)r
pplOcll1lt':s ~ "Duly. we good faith to pnMde pre Ining saM TI in ..!align to AppIlcanrs
ermil: appliCllDon.
2.1. City snat na- no liabiIIIy heret.n:IeI" to AW'R'III far the faIIurv to fill: ~~ ~1t'S
- ~pr" ~lIon. 01' for failUre to ~ AppIicanf"s PennIr wIIhift h time frame ~ by
ppfre;ont or estimZod by Ciry.
;11
V3
O..j/ll/O:.!.
THe 11:18 FAX 8585878912
D.'S ji-\LCOUt
141 003
'-"- ..'
_.1.""
.. .
. ..
~ ~ ...,,- .
....'......
.. ~.
_......,.=-"";-:-:.=:;:,.:~'';..:.'.;.;'.;:.$
-
~ : :;.:.P;";;
,. .~..;-=
5:'3
@iJC5
.":'_:-;:E'"NTif":f C
:~ ..~~...":.
- ---."
2.2. 8)' execo....i;:;'; of :;.... iigi....- Afi..l_.1 ~ t".:1i~c 1m fiwi,; m IDa Pem-.;t lor wtrictI
App/icana has.:ilppliMt ~ shioIi use Ita ~~ in v.>L...,g ~r;; Permit
A/Jor"- ..lion >o1IitiIout reg;ud to APr-'" It'~ JiRIinIse iI) pay farthe Fl. CII?'~ ~. ........... or
the - -don of the Agr~"_IL
3. Remedies.
3.1.' Sll~ IIIion of~' ;i.....
Itt "..c.,itian 10 aIIov.,- rigI'ns 11M IWnredift 1IWhicn !he City s/IIIIJ ~ have at law or equit)'.
me City lias Ihe right fa CI'1ip ncI 8ndfar wiIhhvId the ~ nll'l'" Gf!fle Pem.it 'IIhiI::tt ill the ""'''1!.t
rn:aaar of IhIa ~T_ of, "'.eII as the Permit Whic:tJ may tie !he "oIIje~ mailer rst &fly aItIer Permit
which Applic:ant '* bBtare U. CIty.
3.2. Civii C41ec:tion
. In "dJlliwI!D 811 aIhIw rfaIIrs arid ""'...,L 'IOItKtI1he City shd 4_.... have at Iao,y wequity,
tho CII)" I'IiI: fJ1a ~ to eo--=c .. -- WfIidt .. or may b.._.... dIIe ~ by cMI 8c:11on. and
\CIOn InsIIuiftg ~ J ...... to ccIIDct &amB. 1hIt Inltdino party sIQIl be _ l'Ut.d to ~ IItIDmey's
-- and COsta.
.J_ aI" Lc 1 --as.
4.1 Noli
All naIices, ..... or 'l8queslS PRMdad for or J>eJI./iaW to be ~ ~ to this
Igr-em "'ust be in -.iIb",. AlI>GIIceII" demends and ~ ~ to be aent to any 118ft)' .nail be
18.......4 to I1atoc -., JrF J 1) gillen M - .1!IIo<I if peI_ LD, --.ea or depnoolrW In file UnIted SIrdes
-.aI, -ojIdr r:l to SbdII:IIDt)I. r I:ioga PllP8id. 'e If T -4 or C!II1ifiood. .., AllUm ~ ~ r-qo r.1 at
18 ~ -..1IIi..d ~ ~_CI!IM 111 file ~ of.. PBrUeIIIBpRu..Ibd.
4.2 Gen... ..-.'11 LawNenw.
This Av---""o.d stI8I tie gco -, "'" ~ III1d consm..ao ... ~ wIIh the ,_ of #Ie Stare
. 'CaIiI\)n,. Any -=iDn .''''''... ""*'r or. . .... to INK ~"_( sh&I be ~ c:nty in !tie
1 deI1II or .., CInIJ1$I~ 'rod in San Ciagg CaurIIy, SbI(e aI"'II1f~..ie. ancl if ~ He. the C!!!r at
f ~ VIIIia, or sa dase 11181111". as r. ... Venue far IhiB ~ 8nd P8Ifom_..... hereuncIer.
I IaII te tho ~ aI CIUa \/isla.
-4.3. Multiple $ignaIDrIes.
tf Ihere - ~ .............. to 1tIIa 891'1>-._nf em ,.... or "n" ...It, each or IIUc:h
8 ~ ....... be ~ :Met B8\.1!>.~ iIbIe far the ~j"__ at ...~- ... cIIdie& haniin set
fI 'th.
4.4. S'1gIIatU.y Authaity.
This signa.y to IIIis &rI'-1_4 har1Iby ......nII. and IIIpI 1'.... that he Is the CIoIy
,. sirlnated aslem 1-. the Ap~ and has tIBen QuIy ~ b!I tile APPlIcant Ig fNIeaJIIJ this
A reecne~ 01'1 behairofthe~ $/gn8:lryllltal be peI-4II)-1IabIi:I far All, - ..... CulyIDPay
at j Applicants Ducy fa Dep..... in the I!M:I'It he has nal bMn 8Utharimd to 1 Jte ItIi8 Ag\'eeInem ~
AI,RCIIlIt.
fll
V-'f
04'11'02 THU 11:19 F.~ 8585878912
D.\N JL\LCOLJ1
141004
--... .....
".... '-.:.:::- -'.:"":"
--.......,..
r ,. ...-:;.. ~... .'" ~
--~---~--
A___
-. ;:.;...........2'_1...::. .:...:..::.;.;;,,;;.:.~ i:,,=:~
."
. _'..o::pu.
"--" .',
"".:'::-;-2 ~:!.:
"'QI........
..:J't-.fN"1:tDc c
{~ ;:.:"3;
4.5 Ho.ic'i narmi.is5o.
A;;;;;ia:.rn si'Iaii aerend, inciernM) anD ftoiII ""!!!"-- - t......, c"T;, i;.. ...__ ..lid ~
>ffic:ers aQd eml*-;,8U. 1'rI:II\'J and against any claims. suits, ac!i=r==: cr Pi'- , <iirJSl6. ju~ 0:-
idminlslralive, for wr!ta. crd&n;;, injundiaq or 0IiIw relief, damages. liability, == and e>CpetQe
iftCll.ldin; w.cr-oGUi Iiiftiiaiion iRIDIrMIys' fee$) a.1&ing DtJt of Cily's actiol\8 In JIRIcessInr; or issuing
"'pJiQll('s Permit, or in ...-rrJsiftg any dis........ relab:.d Ihe...tu including but nut Iimired 110 1M ~
It proper emi.tOmrlllntal n:view, the t IJi,-S <If public r-io.... !he ecrwlDion of due PI': . rights.
1Eep( 0II1y for Ihose claims. SUits. ac:dona or PI a.::....4inga arising ftO"' !he SOle negligence or sole
IIiIIfuI ClCll'lducf.of.Ihft..c;;iIy: lsalfic6,.,-<< ""'r rl" kno_ to. but-not. a"j I ~4 fD" by the ~
<ppIjcants ~ &haD indude any 8IId all COllIS. ellpenses, .au......./s few and IiaIIiIity
'CUrr.d bylfte Cit)" lis offlc:vra, &lents, or 1!II'I1pIoya... in d.4..4i.~ atJ8inIII SUCh Claims, ~!he
erne ;:If 0: t. lid to jUdgement or nar. F....,..., "1'17'1- J[, ..tit. own..,. ".... Shall, UpiDllllllritfen I1IqIMQ
y the City, defBnd any sudI suit 0.- adicIn btaugIIt ~8in5l1fte City. lIB oIIL... ", 119. lb. or am F b~ 1: .
~,*~..ts incIerI!n~ .....~ of City IIh8/I not tie Iimired by any Prior or subs..,..". decIa...." .by the
pplic:a,.t., At its sole d~~, the City mey partiripoot- at Irs CIII!'I--. .... in the dafenae 01 any
JcI'I 8CIin, but IiIUCtI paro"';.-Iiton 51'1111 no( ,...,. oil!! the aPPlicant of any oblig8licn impa&ed Qy rtris
)nditiI:m.
4.6 AdIninisIraafve ~1I.rI_ ~ and ~._ _11r~.
No suit or ..b&.libn shd be brausht arising out of this ~_nent ag8inst the ~ ul!!I!ss a
( IIim has IinIt been j:1n15enf8d In -.iti.. and fiIad wIIh 1he C~ of 0IUIa VIStII 8nd acted Ypan by the
( ty of Chuia VISta in a..-...4..._ wIII'I ... ~ set farth in ClIapta. 1.34 of the ChulOI Vana
· tlfticlpal Code, as SI.- may flam tIIne fa time lie _.dad. ... ~isial... of WIIcft are
iI ~ by this referb, _... it Yy .. fantI heIein, and .l1l:I1 pan' IIrId PlDCWUf8$ U8ed by
t ~ City In tfte implern~1tatIo.n of same. Upan ~ by CiIy, ~ 8ttaI.I ~t and canter in
, oed faith 'IIIiIfI City for !tie purpoae of.-.solving ~ dispute _ die terms of this Agteemem.
Now thorefoRr. the petties herI!Ito, haW1g read anc:I undersIood die terms and a:ItIdiIians of tIks
a -ent" do I'IcnDy ~ !heir CI:II'I8erJt to the 1I8rm5 ........... by _fig 1he1r hand hereto on lI'Ie
d Ie _ forth -t.ClellcUI&..:~.,
C ~:
CIty of ChuIa \IiQ
278 FaurtII "-nue
ChuIa \Iista, CA
s. .
DI:ad; "3 2e5
MICIIE'L ~/JCIAJ$;::I
"'A~I'UG PA-A?7,v<i7t
R ANGM:. 8671NAMD. /. 7&1
8)
[II
VJ
llH;\.-i"':--::::"...;U::::' YH':'U :..)1.L.;0 Cd
rn.''. i'lL:,
q
.,~--~~ ItfI"'III,: .Uf"I'I,M.m.aftDn
""".i1I1~ iiI1r_... _TO
. -1'1.0....
- ,Ji)
";;. Air"..
'-1),1'
rJA...
= ~~tJ..o
- .
air" '1,',
-L3/X,O ~
....
II "5/,,.10
_'100 kJ8.,~.~K.~~-P.P..,....... I
/hft
1289
DOC I 1992-0111488
2B-FE9-199Z 03159 P"
Iff1CItL iEIIIIS
SNI DIBIIIDlil'lIECIIIIO'S IIfII!
IIHI(I1( BfIIIi. tII8't IIDIiQ
Jr. 4.10 fHSI 3.509,50
IFI 110 !f1f
ftf. 1.10
lit' 20.10
111. JIIII.~
"""-c:e ABOWIIi: 1'1118 UNa: FoA RECO.RcEFt'S use
---..E.~
.11'
liC
-r:1'
GRANT DEED
1'HI! U"'\DElllaloriUen .....T'~SJ ~I
_...""'....,..... ,..?l'l.'lLs;Q....
18 c........_ MI"'__ .I......~ot
Oc-....._ItII..........w-.__
...........,1--._"'.....
Ou..___........ 0.,,,1 .."..............______..... ....,
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION: ......,.<l..nleh i. ""'"'" ......Jod&od.
IHYESTMS'NTB CHULA VISTA,. L,P'r a I.1Jrdud portnGrRblp.
lw_GRAN'!IS, '" IiAIIC!IO nD.'IDWAY. LTD" a CalUornia L1miWd
partlLClrahip,
Iho _.,I....~bocI rut p"-",, In....
mwn~ 01 San Diogo
City ot Chula Vis~
. ..... 01 CoII_.,
PIUlCELS 1 AIID 2 OF PARcEL NAP 110, 3'34, III 'PHE CITY OP
CHULI. VU~III, muft'!' OJ' SAM D::U;c;o, &TAt'E Qr CALIPORNXA" FJ:l.ED
III THE O1>'Frrli: OF 'I'CIE COUll'l''I' 1II!C0000R OP SAIl DIEGO CO\IItTy,
MARCH 20, 1~75 AS ':I:t.E 1'fo. 75-0639" ap OfTIC%J\L RE'CO.BDS.
'fOGnHJ:R \fnR "'BAt' POIITI01I OF SAID PARCEL MAP loYIwG 1I0R'l'HEllLr
Of' AIID JlDJACBII'r "'" '1'111: NoR't'llE1lL'l I.Ilm OJ' SAID PARCELs 1 &11) ~.
AND LnNG I'U'l'ERLY 0," AlII) ADo)"IICENT 'to 'till; EAS"EiIloI %..Ilia OF
SAID PMCI!!.S 1 NID 2, I\ICD L'tIIq(; NOII'rRMS'l'EILY OP SAID PJUlCEL 1.
Do"'" ~~ Po? 1"1 ~~
STAn nt' t:AIJFOII>I'A
COUNTY 0"
uti .w. ~ dIIr: ~i.-l.
a Hc&.17 "lIb'le III ..... r.,. ..id. c-~ __ ""'-e. pn--.It,
........
INV'BS'1'ME:lIft'S CHULA VIS'!'A, L..P.
. Del<<ware L~i~ed partnership
BYI REM ~~If', .1NC~, a
~a~4%Or~~~ COrpor_~~on
Ceneral panlleE'
BY'~'\'~
ItaU V~~"P... ~~.:r
f'OtIlItOT...." ....L 9 aT'"
- .111_11111-
...."......~...._U....~-.JL- 1 J.............u..
~."'--III...,tt......................... .......
""'MaJId 111:._....... ~ flWellBl..,,---.I 1M.....
."
-~--
SiIflUJIlt'V.,( JlW.ry
'.
Jll-II'IClI1')-ped 01" l"rI_IoI "..~
_.., ",~ .,_ ID--1117S6 .... .. DIDJJ'27-JII
Description: San Diego,CA Document-Year.DocID 1992.111488 Page: 1 of4
Order: CB-03-13-2002 01-10-38 PM Comment: FRANK
v(,
.---,-_._.._,~
;, U(!c
. ~ '.!
.J
I
I
Ii
;J
J:
II
'I':!
,
.,
.. ":
2,
. .,
MAR-13-2002 WED 01:06 PM
FAX NO.
P. 03
Page 1 of I
STEWART TITLE OF CA., INC.
03/1312002 SAN DIE:GO COUNTY
Pr1i'lpared for:
S~I.s Updated Through:
Page 1 of ,
Property Information
Owner Name: RANCHO BROADWAY LTD
Situs Address: 1210 BROADWAY 18 00000
Mailing Address: 4895 ALE!ERSON CT;SAN DIEGO. CA 92130-2701
Legal Desc~ RANCHO DE LA NACION MORRILL MAP, PM03634
Parcel Number: S, 8,280-21-00 Square Feet: 41750
Zoning: 6 lot Size; A 3.8S
City Code: LotSqFt: A 3.8B9
Ownership Type: Bedrooms: 0
Year Built: 197Z Balhs (HilI: 0
Units: Total Rcomz: 0
Pool: NONE
Use Code: 21 -1-3 STORY MISC. STORE BLDGS.
F6aturas:
Sales Information
I..a5t Sale Date: 0212811992 Lender:
Sale Price: S3,1S5,00()F First Trust Deed:
Coco IIIType: "14881 Other Loans:
Price per SqfI: S75.80
1s1 Prevo Sale:
Amount:
Tax tnfonnatlon
E.'I:en'lptioli: NONE: Annual Tax: 543.607.66
Jmproven1ent Value: $1,777,945 Improvement ,,/,: 47
land Value: $1,996,053 Tu Rata Area: 001172 .
Ass9S5ed Value: $3,772,998
03106/2002
Originator: 14-501-372.4
Requested by:
Rep:
THE INFORMATlON PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE, SlIT IS NOT GUARANTEED
COPVRIGHT@19BS.lge8, DATA TRACE INFORMATION SERVICES L~C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
f./7
Iile://C:\Program fi les\SackWeb\NewSTS\html\1Ireport8200.hlml
3/13/2002
MAR-13-2002 WED 01:06 PM
FAX NO,
p, 02
Page 1 of 1
STEWART TiTLE OF CA., INC.
0311312002 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Page 1 of 1
Prepared for:
Sales Updatod Through:
0310612002
Origif1ator: 14-501-3124
Requested by:
Rep.
Propgrty Infonnation
Owner Namo: RANCHO BROADWAY LTC
Situs Address: 1206 BROADWAY CHULA VISTA 91911
Mailing I\d<!ress: 3060 6TH AVE #27:SAN DIEGO CA 92103-5654
Ls9~r DeSG~ RANCHO DE LA NACION MORRILL MAP, PMO:\634
pa.rcel Number: 616-260.2Q-00 Squ3re Feet: 3600
Zoning: 6 LotS[ze: A .51
City Code: CHULA VISTA Lat SqFt: 22215
Ownership Type: Bedrooms: 0
Year Built 1980 aaths (F+H): 0
Unib: 4 Total Rooms: 0
Pool: NONE
Usa Cc:Ide: 21-1-3 STORY MISC. STORE BLDGS.
li"oattlres:
Sales ..,formation
Last Sale Cate: 0212811 992 Lender: BANK OF SOUTHERN C
Sale Price: $3,165,00OF First Trust Deed: S2,100,000
Doc. iilTypc; 1114881DD Other Loans:
Price per Sqfl.: 587916
1st Pr"v, Sale:
Amount:
Ta" Infonnation
EXf;\Imption: NONE Annual Tax: $9,005.54
Improvoment Value: $170.163 ImproV'itment %: 39
Land Value: $258,180 T.. fGle Area: 001152
Assessed Value: $428,343
THE INFORMAT10N PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
COPYRIGHT@I986-19!j8, DATA TRACE INFORMATION SERVICES LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESEI<VED
Yf
file://C:\Program Fi les\HackWeb\'-J'cwSTS\htm1\l \report81 OO.html
311312002
MAR-13-2002 WED 01:06 PM
FAX NO.
P. 05
WI!\!
If:'!
't. .
"
.,
stmol~ 1.._
.o."",,"'~I"""
Crt -f"d... ~.:I':I. 1'1'=1 _ C L' R
. - ,--- - "-. --- L .,~ '" ..ot~
1'0____ '---, "'L"",__~ . v... ,.._,:~~L ':. j. ;,;-_!IJo.,......,
. "1 --.~.... 1- _
.~ -_ M..--...........___.._.._~.__
j
_ .L
1290
~
" .. I
~ knawn fD me Car...... &D GIll "" .... .... .,....... ~
-..- I>.d......_____ .--......~--.o(oj
IIIfIaad - r r~IIwI, _lflii lor ~~-"'--'-"-In~1r
...""." ...,"'" II.. ~., -. ~ .;......M;~::,..... MIl ....... tho _II{aJ. at MIl 8n1J1p .....
WJ1'1vf98........,..1Ind1nL j"l {. ;S ,.". .,.1 ~
.~~ .;$:.. }-:i
~ /' ~-.. ~. .,
SI&_ ~ " ;....,.. .....~'
-........ pf;. ir .:'(~
. ----. , . - ,0..'
k_.._....~___"-'~~_=.....,....=......-,...-'...
.,
If!
I .
-
"---:1 :
I
,
..
.-
.
I
Description: San Diego, CA Document- Year. DoclD 1992.111488 Page: 2 of 4
Order: CB-03-13-2002 01-10-38 PM Comment: FRANK
<f-9
~.
so . .
'U
..
~i
G
MAR-13-2002 WED 01:06 PM
FAX NO.
I
I
...
- AI. _ . . '.... an4
IoIbIIn 118_ _1.1 '%00.
J_ L. w.J.ch
Glenn. 1fr~". 01'_""'" . Scllell
A ~or8..1o_1 ~t:io"
2320 rUt!> 11_. ad_ 300
San DL..." C&l1rDrnia 921Dl
1291
-~-!Q.-.---------------------"
-=-~..----.ML ~ DIP _-
-DiiiiiiI"".. uenu:~
In __~1cm f:_ _ ""'-7'0- b> it of: _ ....,.er..
Pe%C81 Z'8~U%8d t:a Jaer.Jn, 't::IIa WId.~1gD",. .. t.b8 GWIIU' or
....rer.. ....-0.1. ~ed 1:0 1,. _ IIocl_n~ of: ~.
.:....UU- _ _~1Gt;~ _ ~ ot __ toy _ ..._
t118 ....- _ _ ot ZaII4 __ in dID OUlaD at the .....
~ CcnmI;y .. .......... hly 7. 1'71 at; Pile/1'848 11"0. 145738
!uIr8br ad/cn-ow......Y'" _ notUIea itll .......tll_ra 1n ~I: as
toll<NBc
AU~.~_o~moy~
I.a RiAl ~.. ~. or _ poi:1:J.....
....&'..~. .at -.-e. aa notl.. tha:t CU'tain
18p~_. .bI _ _ of _14 Buyoora Pa..-J.
...,. not be in ~110__ utll _ ~nu
of: _ _18r.~ of: CW-..I:.. _~ .
- ...Rript:1one _ _I: ~ Ba_ By .IIIS
Be_.. tile __ _ _ ot LoncI <laCed
.1\1118 29, 1971, IUICI ):-----811 ill t:b., of'1!'ioo o~
tI:ae _ DiDI)W:I eo&aty .. r I Jer an J\a1y ", 1971
in IIaak un. * P11.."... 110, 145121. _
- or _Uti... ...... aU dlJcll of: ._
naIICaIIpliaDole &lid __ tIMa _~ aM
all prior __a of tile Jwu-'..I'atDo1 _
~ "--'1188 or 1iab11iq. aris1.. ~~"
IIo'TIID. Pebnuy 27. 1992
_ClIO ~1', ~" ..
c:alitom1a lbi_ paRlwt'""J,p
ay. J1WIIt, DIe,. a cal1toJalia
carpo...u-. .. ~
partlMr
-'~-
Description: San Diego,CA Document-Year.DocID 1992.111488 Page: 3 of4
Order: CB,03-13-2002 01-10-38 PM Comrnent: FRANK $"0
p, 06
~
)
t..,
':11
~ Ij
~
Ii
,,",'
~j
l
'Ii
I',,:!
. I
"
(p
MPR-13-2002 WED 01:07 PM
'~~'@'i
~~~ ., f
.,~:, ..
.i~'::'
~ .j
.
.~~
.~.
==~
t~~
iii
~~~
i ~;g
, i(!o;;g
, '~~
: I i~
;' ~ iIi!
~!~!
"
~~c
!:zI5
~~as
mm
r-.)o c
o'nm
gnm
~co
..:~~
~(');11
0-<'"
~~q;
.......m
-::.:'"
~Og~
....m
~",;g
"'",
"'-.
00
~~~S
~~a';:
1i1~~:
:=~~'(i'
~i~&
-<...,
~r=);J
~~?!
n
I
o
~
r
'"
j;
n
(5
:z
I
-.
o
'"
p
'" :;.
M co
n ..,
~;
<ill
.
~
';111::-
~H
~H
~~t
FAX NO.
~
':-,-'"
"'~. 2.A~
~
"
o'
1/
~
r. ,
':'l';"'.l
:~~.
.' f
! ,-:t
:.. , .I~ @V
,~. ,. ~."
~: ~"'+ ~IF'
!;',~ ~~t' :t-
.!.(..., -..J~ ..
.fQ J:I
""~
4<J""" . ,..e.;;~--
i1
:;
I
I
,.
,"
I ,e
, ,~
~
'1_
:!~
';v
..,
~!
"1
~ ,)0
I
I
.. ::1
~ 1.1
~
'1
I
I
-'I~:tj, ,,,,3I1Jo11 ~I"
g j@t ~~'
! to ,. \ ... C!...~
~I:*~"" Q JC
~""I
.,"
~ I
; ,
..
~i.of't?\
~~~
;..~
D
In
'"
- n
,
," 1.,.,
~Q@
,- - ., ;;;
., '\
-0 , ..,
~~@
~~ B
@
"~H
""
'I "
"'''11;7
.~,
@
'ii~~
> "
o
,
~
-
~
".
.,
;~
if
n
..
..
."
"
~!'!
..
~~
-<
'.
'"
~@)
.. ~~-
:t ~ 110
~ ~i~~ti
I ., " ~~
Ii ! . . I .,-
- -- J -,- ---....,....,..,.'T-~
!@jif
I ....
"it~~
o
o.
@
>>
ai
~
~
f'T.
',' .
....r......._~_~
Description: San Diego.CA Assessor Map 618.28 Page: 1 of 1
Order: CB-03-13-2002 01.19.18 PM Comment: ALFRED S-I
p, 08
o
~
if
~
o
o
..
~
!
C>
'"
~
CD
MAR-13-2002 WED 01:07 PM
FAX NO.
.I
,
;
S'rA'-"I! O:\'.CAL1:I'<IRN.'tA
CCItJft\/ or eAII D1I!GD
I
I
I
12:J2
~ -, t:I>e ..........1911004, .. Ifot:a:cy
t ,...o...uV -
>>eZ'll., _aE'~ca_on .0:1: ~
.aUahct:ozy 4IVu.nc. to loa tile ....._ VIla _Clat.d tJIe ..1~
~ .... oi'~iCMZ" of: rR%IIU, Xna., .. __aU-_
'_1 partJI.... o~ - ~p tllU __ 1::IIe .i~ta
iII._at:, IIIId aoknaw1edoJed. too lIS _t: _ paztaena!p __1:8d
t:ba .....
VI'1'IIESS 1OJ' _ UIIII onkJ.a1 ~_
7A~w.u ~
~
--=--=.~
-.-
Description: San Diego,CA Document-Year.DocID 1992.111488 Page: 4 of4
Order: CB-03-13-2002 01-10-38 PM Comment: FRANK S-~
p, 07
I,
,
I
- .1
"
I,
I:
f-;
~j
J'
I;
I'~
,
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-3-
Meeting Date 9/25/02
ITEM TITLE:
PCM 03-09: Determination of development standards for EastLake III
relating to exterior side yard setbacks and allowable stories within a single
family residence.- The City ofChula Vista.
Section II.3.1. 7 of the EastLake III SPA ("Clarification of Ambiguity") indicates that jfan ambiguity
exists with respect to height, yard or area requirements of land use district boundaries as described
within the PC District Regulations, it shall be the duty of the Zoning Administrator to analyze the
situation and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The subject request for
determination is for two such items: I) interpretation of the measurement of exterior side yard
setbacks when adjacent to an open space lot and 2) the allowable number of stories within a singlc,
family residence.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
Califomia Environmcntal Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project"
as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060
(c) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental
review is necessary. Future proposals of development will require environmental review in
accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution regarding the interpretation of
development standards for exterior side yard setbacks and the allowable numbcr of stories within a
single,family residence, in accordance with the findings contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
Analysis
Within the PC District Regulations, staff is aware of the need for two interpretations of the
development standards which should be made in order to further the vision for the EastLake III
Development. The proposed interpretations to Section 1I.3.3.2 (Tables C-E) are intended to address
specific necds of the master developers within the EastLake III project area and are based upon
consistency with both the intent of the regulations as well as consistency with the development
standards of Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance") and the PC District
Regulations from other residential neighborhoods within EastLake.
Page No.2, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
Exterior side yard setbacks
Section 11.3.3.2 (Tables C,E) states that for corner lots, a tcn foot (10') setback is typically required
between the residence and the exterior side yard property line (see Attachment 2). Under normal
circumstances, the property line is also the ROW line for the street. The intent of this setback,
therefore, is to maintain a minimum often feet (1 0') between the edge of the house and the ROW of
the street. However, there are some instances in EastLake III (see attachment 3) where there is an
open space lot separating the residential lot from thc street. In these cases, the Zoning Administrator
recommends the following:
Whereas, the required setback is measured from the property line, ifan open space lot with a
minimum width often feet (10') separates the residential lot from the street right-of-way, the
setback could be reduced to five feet (5').
The addition of an open space lot between the residential lot and the street ROW will allow for said
reduction in setback to five feet while still achieving the overall intent of providing a minimum
distance often feet between the side of the residencc and the street ROW. The combination of the ten
foot (10') open space lot and five foot (5') setback will result in a fiftecn foot (15') separation
between the residence and street ROW. Thus, the Zoning Administrator believes this interpretative
determination is necessary in order to equitably apply the intent of the exterior side yard setback.
Allowable number of stories within a single family residence
Scction 11.3.3.2 (Tables C-E) depicts the maximum allowable height as twenty eight feet (28') within
most of the residential land use districts. Howcver, within the same height restriction of twenty eight
feet (28'), a total of only two (2) stories are pcrmitted within certain land use districts whereas in
other land use districts, up to 2 y, stories are permitted (ie. RE I and RE2). (see attachment 2),
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance") as
well as other PC District Regulations for the EastLake Planned Community (ie. EastLake Greens,
EastLake Trails) and found them to consistently allow for two and one-half stories with a height
restriction of twenty-eight feet (28') within their Land Use Districts. A half-story is defined in
Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code (see attachment 4) and allows flexibi lity in the design of single
family dwellings by merchant builders. Attachment 5 shows a hypothetical scenario of allowing for
an additional half-story attic/loft and still maintain the ovcralltypical residential height restrictions
of 28 feet.
The SPA document contains no language to clarify why there is an ambiguity regarding the
allowable number of stories, within the same height limit. Due to this lack of clarity within the SP A
as well as staffs analysis of similar residential districts in other areas, the Zoning Administrator
believes allowing only two (2) stories within certain districts to be a clerical error within the SPA
Page No.3, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
document. Therefore, it is recommended that the allowance for an additional half, story (for a total
of 2 Y2 stories) should extend to all of the residential land use districts for EastLake III which
contain a maximum height oftwcnty cight fcct (28').
The Zoning Administrator further recommends that if the Planning Commission concurs that the
omission of the Y2 story is an oversight, EastLake should be required to amend to PC District
Regulations accordingly.
Conclusion
As described above, the Zoning Administrator recommends that these two determinations of the
intent of the PC District Regulations be made by the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
1. Planning Conlll1ission Resolution
2. Section II.3.3.2 (Tables C-E) of EastLake III PC District Regulations
3. Exhibit showing clarification of allowing 2 1!2stories while maintaining typical height limit
4. Definition of half. story (CV Municipal Code)
5. Exhibit showing clarification of allowing 2 h stories while maintaining typical height limit
A:PC\1 03-09
.....___..,.""_.__.._""".,..__.~__,_.,.._..__..___.._._.." '0'.---_.--- ..._ _., .__.__.___.._...,_."" _',_
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 03-09
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR EASTLAKE III RELATING TO EXTERIOR SIDE
YARD SETBACKS AND ALLOWBLE STORIES WITHIN A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a determination of development standards was
filed with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on September 13, 2002, by the City of
Chula Vista ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests a determination of development standards for Section
11.3.3.2 of the EastLake III SPA PC District Regulations relating to exterior side yard setbacks and
allowable stories within a single family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has recommended said determination ofthe Planning
Commission regarding the measurement of exterior side yard setbacks based upon the finding that
allowing a reduction in exterior side setback to five feet (5') when a residential lot abuts a ten foot
(10') open space lot will achieve the effect of the same minimum setback requirement Often feet
(10') which is required where no open space lot exists between the residential lot and ROW; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator further finds that allowing an additional half story
consistently in all residential land use districts within EastLake III will not jeopardize the existing
maximum height restriction and will allow for consistency of number of allowed stories, as
described within the Municipal Code as well as allowed in other areas of EastLake; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that said activity is not
a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA., and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for an action item,
namely 6:00 p.m., September 25,2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
determines the following:
I. Nothwithstanding that exterior side yard setback is measured from the property line,
if an open space lot with a minimum width often feet (10') separates the residential
lot from street right,of,way, the setback could be reduced to five feet (5'). This
determination will apply to those Districts requiring a ten foot (10') minimum
setback as follows: RE2, RE3, RS I, RS2, RPI and RP2 Land Use District only since
Resolution PCM 03-09
Page 2
they are the only ones requiring a ten foot (10') minimum setback..
2. An additional half,story be added to the existing allowance for two (2) stories for a
total of two and one-half(2 y,) story allowance for single family residences with a
building height limitation of twenty eight feet (28') constructed in the RL2,
RLJ,RL4,RE3,RSl,RS2,RPI and RP2 Land Use Districts and building height of
thirty feet (30') constructed in the RL 1 Land Use District..
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 25th day of September 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Table C
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RL GROUP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
~
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT
RLI RL2 RL3 RL4
Lot Criteria:
Minimum lot area (square feel) 22,000 13,500 10,000 10,000
Maximum lot coverage (%) BSP 45 50 50
Minimum lot dePth (feel) SSP 120 110 110
Minimum lot width (feet):
-measured at property line7 BSP 115 95 95
-flag lot street frontage BSP 35 25 25
-knuck]e or cul-de-sac street frontage6 BSP 40 35 35
Yards and setbacks:*
Minimum front yard setback:
-to direct entry garage BSP 30 25 25
-to side entry garage BSP 20 20 20
-to main residence BSP 25 20 20
Minimum side yard setback (feet)":
-to adjacent residentiallut (one side/total) BSP 10/25 7/20 7/20
-distance between detached units BSP 20 17 17
~to adjacent residential street (corner lot) BSP 20 20 17
Minimum rear yard setback (feet)' BSP 25 25 25
Building height (stories/feet): 2130' 2/28 2/28' 2/28'
Parking:
-minimum on-site spaces (minimum in garage) 67(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)
-minimum on-street spaces 0 2 2 0
-maximum driveway width at curb (feet) 16 24 24 163
I Side and rear yard setbacks for accessory huildings (Refer to Seclion 11.3.3-5)
2 Maximum height is 35 feet. if approved by Zoning Administrator.
_1 Maximum width is 24 feet for shared driveway serving more than one primary residence.
~ The side yard setback for an entry drive trellis or portico may be reduced by 50% subject to Variance approval.
5 Maximum height may be increased to 3 stories and 35', as defined in Chapter 19.04.038, with Design Review approval.
f, For cui-de-sacs and knuckles the ]ot width shall be measured at thc front sctback linc.
,. The four on-site parking spaces in RL 1. that are in addition to the two primary spaces, may be in garages. parking bays, or use
driveways. providing thcy do nOI block ingress and cgress of the two primary on-site spaccs in garages..
Additional Notes:
*Refer to Section II.3.3.4C for aJlowable building area for each Land Use District.
*Refer to Section 11.3.J.4F for special setbacks for Scenic Highways_
(7117/01 )
PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
11.3-15
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Table D
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RE GROUP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
~
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT
REI RE2 RE3
Lot Criteria:
Minimum lot area (sauare feet) 8,000 7.000 7,000
Maximum 101 coverage (%) 50 50 50
Minimum 101 deplh (feel) 105 105 108
Minimum 101 widlh (feet):
-measured at property line 4 80 70 65
-flag lot street frontage 20 20 20
-knuckle or cul-de~sac street frontalJe.l 25 25 25
Yards and setbacks:'
Minimum front yard setback (feet from back of sidewalk):
-to direct entry garage
-to side entry garage 20 20 20
-to main residence IS 15 15
15 15 15
Minimum side yard setback (feet)":
-to adjacent residential lot (one side/total) 5/15 5/10 5/10
-distance between detached units 12 10 10
-to adiacent residential street (corner lot) 15 10 10
Minimum rear yard setback (fee1)l.3: 25 20 20
Building height (stories/feet): 2V2f28 2VV28 2/28
Parking:
-minimum on-slte spaces (minimum in garage) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)
-minimum on-street spaces I I 1
-maximum driveway width at curb (feet) 24 24 24
I Side and rear yard selbacks for accessory buildings (Refer to Section 11.3.3-5).
1 The side yard setback for an enlry drive trellis or portico may be reduced by 50%. Subject to Variance approval.
, For cui-dc-sacs and knuckles the lot width shall be measured at the front setback line.
~
Additional Notes:
*Refer to Section 1I.3.3.4C for allowable building area for each Land Use District.
*Refer to Section 11.3.3.4F for special setbacks for Scenic Highways_
(7/17/01)
PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
TI.3-16
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Table E
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RS & RP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT
RSI RS2 RPI RP2
Lot Criteria:
Minimum lot area (sauare feet) 6.000 5,000 4,200 3.150
Maximum lot coverage (%) 50 50 50 50
Minimum lot depth (feet) 100 100 90 70
Minimum lot width (feet):
-measured at property line. ~ 60 50 42 45
~flag lot street frontage 20 20 SP SP
-knuckle or cul-de-sac street frontage 3 25 25 SP SP
Yards and setbacks:'
Minimum front yard setback:
-to direct entry garage 20 20 19Y, 19Y,
-to side entry garage 15 15 15 15
-to main residence 15 15 15 15
Minimum side yard setback (feet)l.2:
-to adjacent residential lot SilO 5110 5110 5110
-distance between detached units 10 10 10 10
-'! -to adjacent residential street (comer lot) 10 10 10 10
Minimum rear yard setback (feet)l.3: 20 15 15 15
Building height (stories/feet):
~ ~main building 2/28 2/28 2/28 2/28
-accessory building 1115 1115 1115 1115
Parking:
-minimum on-site spaces (minimum in garage) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)
-minimum on-street spaces I I I I
-maximum driveway width at curb (feet) 24 24 ]6.5 16.5
I Side and rear yard setbacks for accessory buildings (Refer to Section 11.3.3-5).
2 The side yard setback for an entry drive trellis or portico may be reduced by 50%. Subject to Variance approval.
:1 For cui-dc-sacs and knuckles the lot width shall be measured m the front setback line.
Additional Notes:
"'Refer to Section 1133AC for allowable building area for each Land Use District.
*Refer to Section 1I.3.3.4F for special setbacks for Scenic Highways.
(7117/01 )
PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
11.3,]7
~
i I
n J
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT 3
Open Space Lot
Residential Lot
Minimum width of lo' for
Open Space Lot
Minimum of 5' If abuts open
space lot continuing minimum
width of 10'
! 5 feet- Combined 111ltlimurn
distance bet\vccn edge or
residence and street ROW
"'"
Chula Vista Municipal Code
ATTACHMENT 4
19.04.298
19.04.274 Stable, riding.
"Riding stable" means any stable where horses
are kept for hire. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code
9 33.1401).
19.04.276 Story.
"Story" means that portion of a building
included between the surface of any floor and the
floor or ceiling next above it. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969;
prior code 9 33.1401).
19,04,278 Story, first.
"First story" means the lowest story or the
ground story of any building, the floor of which is
not more than 12 inches below the average contact
ground level at the exterior walls of the building;
except, that any basement or cellar used for resi-
dential purposes shall be deemed the first story.
(Ord. 12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19.04.280 Story, half.
"Half story" means a partial story under a gable,
hip or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which on at
least two opposite exterior walls are not more than
four feet above the floor of such story; provided,
however, that any partial story used for one or
more dwelling units shall be deemed a full story.
(Ord. 12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19,04,282 Story, mezzanine,
"Mezzanine story" means a story which covers
one. third or less of the area of the story directly
underneath it. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code
933.1401).
19.04.284 Street.
"Street" means a public right-of-way, more than
30 feet in width, which provides a public means of
access to abutting property. The teno "street" in-
cludes "avenue," "drive," "circle," "road," "park-
way," "boulevard," "highway," "thoroughfare," or
any other similar teno. The teno shall include the
total width of the dedicated right-of-way. (Ord.
12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19.04,286 Street, private.
"Private street" means a right-of-way or ease-
ment in private ownership, not dedicated or main,
tained as a public street, which affords the principal
means of access to two or more sites. (Ord. 1212
9 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19,04.288 Structural alteration.
"Structural alteration" means any change in the
structural memhers of a building, such as walls,
columns, beams or girders. (Ord. 12129 I, 1969;
prior code 9 33.1401).
19.04.290 Structure.
"Structure" means anything constructed, the use
of which requires penoanent location on the
ground, or attachment to something having a per-
manent location on the ground. (Ord. 1212 9 I.
1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19,04.292 Tideland.
"Tideland" means lands between the "mean
higher high water" and the "mean lower low water"
as defined by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
(Ord. 12129 I, 1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19.04.294 Townhouses,
"Townhouses" means attached or semi,attached
buildings, each containing a single dwelling unit
and each located or capable of being located on a
separate lot. (Ord. 1212 9 I, 1969; prior code
933.1401).
19,04,296 Trailer camp, trailer park or
mobilehome park,
"Trailer camp, trailer park or mobilehome park"
means any lot or part thereof, or any parcel of land,
which is used or offered as a location for two or
more camp trailers or mobilehomes occupied as a
residence. (Ord. 1941 9 I, 1981; Ord. 1212 9 I.
1969; prior code 9 33.1401).
19,04.298 Trailers.
A. "Camping trailer" means a vehicular porta-
ble unit mounted on wheels and constructed with
collapsible partial side walls which fold for towing
by another vehicle and unfold at a campsite to pro-
vide temporary living quarters.
B. "Motornome" means a vehicular unit built on
or penoanently attached to a self,propelled motor
vehicle chassis, chassis cab or van, which becomes
an integral part of the completed vehicle, primarily
designed to provide temporary living quarters.
C. "Camper (slide in)" means a portable unit,
consisting of a roof, floor and sides designed to be
loaded into and unloaded from the bed of a pickup
truck, constructed to provide temporary living
quarters.
D. "Cargo trailer" means a vehicle designed to
be drawn by a motor vehicle for the purpose of
transporting cargo, including a boat or livestock.
19-19
ATTACHMENT 5
"
!
r
..~.I
I
Ii gi
0
.j
';:1
I ~I
i
I II
i
i z
0
I I' r-
I'" I u
:'.i.', ill
!<', ~ i CI:>
s CI:>
I I. CI:>
I 0
a::
u
I I
i I
~l
~,!
~
"
~
"
~
E
"
E
."
"
E
~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .L./-
Meeting Date 9/25/02
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-04; Amendment to Chapters 19.04,
Definitions, and 19.48, P,C Planned Community Zone of Chula Vista
Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The City of
Chula Vista.
The application sponsored by the City of Chula Vista proposes to amend Chula Vista Municipal
Code Chapters 19.04, Definitions and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone. The Environmental
Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined
under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) ofthe
State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the Council adopt
the draft Ordinance approving amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapters 19.04
Definitions, and Chapter 19.48 P,C Community Zone, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, in
accordance with the findings contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
In 1991, the City Council adopted an ordinance which requires that planned communities provide a
minimum of 1.39 acres of land per thousand population for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF).
The ordinance also requires that several community purpose land uses, as listed in CVMC Section
19.04.055, be permitted by conditional use permit and contains other provisions to regulate the
development ofCPF sites. In 1998, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend Chapter 19.04
and Chapter 19.48 to allow recreational ball fields with a conditional use permit in the CPF land use
districts, subject to approval ofa CPF master plan for the entire planned community GDP, SPA or
specific designated CPF master plan area, and limited to 25% of the total CPF acreage required for
said master plan area. Subsequently, in 200 I the City Council adopted an ordinance to increase the
allowable perccntage ofCPF acreage that can be utilized for ball fields to 35% and also to establish
specific criteria to allow for-pro fit-day care use in the CPF land use districts subject to a conditional
use pennit.
The current proposed amendment includes allowances for a CPF credit for specified Homeowners
Association (HOA) recreational facilities and modifications to the requirements regarding allowance
for interim uses.
.. _'_"__"_'"__'__.'__"_"'_~'.____...>.___.__.L_,__,,_._"__~"~"'______~__
Page No.2, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
Analysis
The proposed amendments to Chapters 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, P,C, Planned Community
Zone, are intended to address specific community needs within the master planned communities in
eastern Chula Vista. Because the proposed amendments address different community needs, the
following paragraphs describe the interim uses and the provisions for inclusion ofHOA facilities
separately.
Interim Uses
Section 19.48.025(E) currently provides that after five years of non,use of a community purpose
facility (after the issuance ofthe first certificate of occupancy on a structure in the SP A Plan areas),
the developer may file a request for a conditional interim use, subject to certain findings. The
proposed language would reduce the waiting period for requesting an interim use on the site from
five years to three years. In addition, a new finding must be made that if a structure is designed as a
permanent building, the site design, floor plan and building design is to be planned as a conceptual
component ofa permanent, pennitted CPF use complex (see Attachment 2). Staffbelieves that these
changes will reduce the hardship experienced by developers who have difficulty marketing certain
CPF sites.
Adding an allowance for HOA "recreational" Facilities
Section 19.48.025(c) currently only allows recreational facilities, such as ball, fields, for non, profit
organizations and serving the local community to be considered for CPF credit. The development
community has requested that certain homeowner association (HOA) facilities should also be given
credit for meeting the recreational use provisions ofthe CPF ordinance. Staff analyzed the request
and (based upon our analysis and expcrience so far with master planned communities) concurs that
certain HOA recreational facilities (i.e. common usable open space areas) should qualify for CPF
credit (subject to recommended findings regarding minimum parcel size and recreational amenities
provided as outlined in section 19.48.025(H).[See Attachment 2]). Staff is ofthe opinion that we can
accommodate the amount ofregular CFP users (i.e. churches, day care, schools etc) on 65% of the
CPF acreage provided, and that the other available CFP credit can be used for common usable open
space areas, which the City is encouraging the developers to provide for small lot developments.
Conclusion
As described above, staff is supportive of allowing certain HOA facilities which meet specific
criterion. In addition, the reduction in waiting time before CPF sites can be considered for interim
uses will help further alleviate hardships to the landowner while at the same time still maintaining
the overall amount of CPF land available in the master planned communities for uses that may be
difficult to locate in other land use districts.
Page No.3, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/25/02
The overall amendment is consistent with the General Plan and public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendment.
Attachments:
1. Planning ConunisslOll Resolution
2. Draft City Council Ordinance
A: PCA 02.04cp ford .doc. rev 3 .doc
RESOLUTION NO. PCA 02-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 1904, DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P,C
PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal
Code was filed with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on April 9,2002, by the
City ofChula Vista ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests certain amendments to Chapter 19.04, Definitions, and
19.48, P,C Planned Community Zone; Specifically modification of Chapter 19.04 to modify
"community purpose facility" definition, and modification of Chapter 19.48, P-C Planned
Community Zone, Subsection 19.48.025 to include allowance for specified recreational facilities
provided by homeowners associations to be considered for CFP credit including required findings
and modify the provisions for interim uses. and Subsection 19.48.040 to provide further clarification
regarding the requirements for a CPF Master Plan prior to allowance of any recreational facilites
within CFP land use districts; ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment"); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the activity is not a
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA., and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, as
given by its publication is a newspaper of general circulation 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.,
September 25, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Ordinance approving certain
amendments to Chapters 19.04 and 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal code pertaining to
Community Purpose Facilities in accordance with the findings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 25th day of September 2002, by the following vote, to,wit:
Resolution PCA 02,04
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.04, DEFINITIONS,
AND 19.48, P-C PLANNED COMMUNTIY ZONE OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
L RECIT ALS
A. Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code was filed with the Planning and Building Department ofthe City of
Chula Vista on April 9, 2002 as sponsored by the City ofChula Vista ("Applicant");
and,
WHEREAS, said application requests certain amendments to Chapter 19.04,
Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone; specifically modification of
Chapter 19.04, Section 19.04.055 to modify "community purpose facility" definition,
modification of Chapter 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone, Section 19.48.025 to
and add language related homeowners associations; modify provisions for interim
uses and add required findings for recreational facilities, and modification to Section
19.48.040 to modify thc rcquirements for allowing recreationaluscs within CFP land
use district ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment"); and,
B. Environmental Detennination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the activity
is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQZA Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to
CEQA; and
C. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
Project on, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon
the findings listed below.
D. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and notice public hearing was held before the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista on October 8, 2002, on the Discretionary Approval
Application, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard
public testimony with regard to same; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 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 this project held on September 25, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as
defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section
15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA.
IV. FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal
Code will address concerns of the development community concerning hardships expressed by the
devclopment community regarding thc rcquirements for providing for CFP acreagc in the mastcr
planned communities of Eastern Chula Vista by allowing certain HOA facilities to qualify for CFP
credit as well as reduce the amount oftime before which a developer may request an interim use on a
CFP designated parcel. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan and public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support
the amendments.
V. APPROV AL
Based on the above, the City Council hereby approves the proposed amendments to the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically to Chapter 19.04 and Chapter 19.48 as depicted in Exhibit
"A", attached hereto.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day from and
after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning & Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBIT "A"
Community Purpose Facilities- Proposed Amendment Text
TEXT LEGEND:
New Text
Deleted Text
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.04.055
Chapter 19.04
DEFINITIONS
Community purpose facility.
"Commanity purpose facility" means a stmcture or site for childcar€, certain non
profit assembly, or recreation purposes, as w€1I as ancillary uses such as a parking lot,
within a planned community. Typical uses include: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts ami other
similar organizations, social and human services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services
for homeless, services for military personnel during the holidays, senior or child care and
recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional
family val\Jes, and recreational ball fields. See Section 19.4g.025(C) for a complete listing
of Community Purpose Facility uses. (Ord 2732 ~5 (part), 19n; Ord 2152A ~I, 1991).
"Community purpose facility" means a land use designation in a planned community
intended for non,profit and certain for-profit land uses as listed in section 19.48.025(c).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections:
19.48.010
19.48.020
19.48.025
19.48.030
19.48.040
19.48.050
19.48.060
(R 7/02)
Chapter 19.48
P-C - PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE
Pu rpose.
Regulations generally-Minimum acreage-Ownership
restrictions,
Community purpose facilities-Minimum acreage required-
permitted uses.
Application-Method-Documents required.
Application-General development plan required-Contents
required.
Findings required for recommendation of establishment.
P-C zone-Planning commission action.
1
19.48.070
19.48.080
19.48.090
19.48.100
19.48.11 0
19.48.120
19.48.130
19.48.140
19.48.150
19.48.160
19.48.010
P-C zone-City council action-Compliance with general
development plan required.
General development plan-Modification requests and
procedures.
Sectional planning areas and sectional planning area
plans-Requirements and contents.
Sectional planning area plans-Finding required for
recommendation of approvaL
Sectional planning area plans-Actions of planning
commission and city counciL
Sectional planning area Plans-Effect of plan approvaL
Sectional planning area plans-Modification requests and
procedures.
P-C Zone-Residential areas not subject to design review.
Recycling collection centers.
P-C zone-Exceptions.
Pu rpose.
The purposes of the planned community zone are to:
A. Provide for the orderly preplanning and long-term development of large tracts of
land which may contain a variety of land uses, but are under unified ownership or
development control, so that the entire tract will provide an environment of stable
and desirable character;
B. Give the developer reasonable assurance that sectional development plans prepared
by him in accordance with an approved general development plan will be
acceptable to the city. Sectional development plans may include subdivision plans
and/or planned unit development plans as provided for in this title;
C. Enable the city to adopt measures providing for the development of the surrounding
area compatible with the planned community zone.
(Ord 2732 95 (part), 1998; Ord 1854 95 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978; Ord 1281
92 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 91 (part), 1969; prior code 933.5201 (A)).
19.48.020
Regulations generally-Minimum acreage-Ownership restrictions.
A. P,C zones may be established on parcels of land which are suitable for, and of
sufficient size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the purpose
(R 7/02)
2
of this chapter and the objectives of this division. No P,C zone shall include less
than fi fty acres of contiguous lands;
B. All land in each P-C zone, or approved section thereof, shall be held in one
ownership or under unified control unless otherwise authorized by the planning
commission, except as provided for in Section 19.48.160. For the purposes of this
chapter, the written consent or agreement of all owners in a P-C zone to the
proposed general development plan and general development schedule shall be
deemed to indicate unified control.
(Ord 2732 ill (part), 1998; Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 2452A g2, 1991; Ord 1854 g5 (part),
1979; Ord 1826 ill (part), 1978; Ord 1281 92 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ill (part), 1969; prior
code g33.520(B)).
19.48.025
Community purpose facilities-Minimum acreage required-Permitted
uses.
A. All land in each P-C zone, or any section thereof, shall provide adequate land
designated as "Community Purpose Facilities (CPF)", as defined in Section
19.05.055.
B. A total of 1.39 acres of net usable land (including setbacks) per 1,000 population
shall be so designated for such facilities in any planned community, and shall be so
designated in the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan(s) and Planned Community
District Regulations of each planned community. This total acreage requirement
may be reduced only if the City Council determines, in conjunction with its
adoption of aSP A Plan, that a lesser amount of land is needed, based on availability
of shared parking with other facilities, or other community purpose facilities that
are guaranteed to be made available to the community. Any shared parking
arrangements pursuant to this section shall be guaranteed regardless of any future
changes in occupancy of facilities.
C. The required CPF acreage shall have a CPF, Community Purpose Facilities, land
use designation. All uses shall require a conditionalus€ peffilit; Th@ following laRd
uses can be considered as conditionally permitted uses:AIl of the following uses are
permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit:
I. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations;
2. Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous;
3. Services for homeless;
4. Services for military personnel during the holidays;
(R 7/02)
3
5. Senior care and recreation;
6. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional
family values;
7. Non-profit or for-profit day care facilities that are ancillary to any of the
above or as a primary use. For-profit facilities as primary use are subject to
further requirements and additional criteria as outlined in Section (F) below.
8. Private schools that are ancillary to any ofthe above;
9. Interim uses, subject to the findings outlined in 19.48.025 (E).
10. Recreational facilities, such as ball fields, for non-profit organizations
(including homeowners associations) serving the local community, subject
to the requirements outlined in 19.48.040(B)(6)(d) and subject to the
findings outlined in 19.48.025(H).
D. Criteria outlining the siting, property development standards, and operational
parameters such as location building setbacks, maintenance and design, and hours
of operation, shall be incorporated into the SPA's Planned Community District
Regulations.
E. Findings. Approval of interim uses on CPF-designated sites shall require that the
approval authority make certain findings, as outlined herein:
Conditional Interim TJses Permitted /.fter five Years. The city council, upon
receiving the advice and recommendation of the planning commission may, after
five years of non Hse as a community purpose facility after the issHance of the first
certificate of occupaFlCY on a structHre in SP 1'. Plan areas, in accordaFlce with the
procedures for issuance of conditional use permits contained in Chapter 19.14 of
this Code, cORditionally permit interim, non permaReRt non residential uses which
are not community pHrpose facility uses that council finds (I) the interim use to be
compatible with the sUITmmding land uses (2) that the commuRity purpose facility
use is not immineRtly likely; and (3) that denial of an interim use '),'ould constitute a
further hardship to the laRd owner. If an interim Hce is permitted by the city council,
it shall in no event be terminable within said five year period e1:cept upon one year's
advance notice of intent to terminate said conditional use permit by the city cOlH1cil.
City council shall give such one year notice UpOR being advised of a sale or lease by
at the owner to purchaser or tenant for use as a community purpose facility.
Conditional Interim Uses. The City Council, with recommendations from the
Planning Commission, may approve a conditional use permit for an interim use in
(R 7/02)
4
accordance with the procedures for issuance of a said permit as outlined in chapter
19.14 of the Municipal Code provided the following findings are made:
I. That the CPF land use designation was established at least three years prior
to the consideration of any interim use, and the applicant agrees to continue
marketing the site for a permanent CFP use concurrent with the interim use.
2. That the interim use is not a residential use.
3. That the interim use is compatible with surrounding land uses.
4. That a community purpose facility (CPF) use is not imminent at the time the
application for the conditional use permit is filed.
5. That the interim use will terminate within five years of issuance of said
permit unless the City Council provides one years notice of intent to
terminate said conditional use permit.
6. That the denial of the interim use would constitute a hardship to the
landowner.
7. That if the interim use structure is designed as a.permanent building, the site
design, floor plan and building design is planned as a conceptual component
of a permanent, permitted CPF use complex.
F. Findings. Approval of for-profit daycare facilities as a primary use shall be based
upon evidence determined to be sufficient by the City indicating that the CPF site
has been marketed for a period of 5 years for CPF land uses (other than for, profit
day care) as defined in Section 19.48.025 (C). The Director of Planning and
Building may waive this time restriction if the remaining CPF acreage within the
same SPA plan consists of at least 4 contiguous acres.
G Review by City Council. For each approved sectional planning area plan on which
is designated one or more community purpose facility uses, the City Council shall
review said plan annually for the purpose of determining the actual market interest
in the purchase or lease of said land so designated and the marketing activity
associated therewith.
H. Findings. Approval of recreational facilities shall be based upon evidence
determined to be sufficient by the City that the proposed recreational facility meets the
following minimum requirements:
I. The site should be no less than 0.5 usable acres in size (usable means level
areas with maximum slope of'S: I ).
2. The recreational facility is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
3. A recreational facility located on a parcel of less than one-acre will contain
the following recreational amenities: a) One multi,purpose hard court; b)
children play area; c) community gathering place; d) an outdoor cooking
facility; and e) level lawn area.
(R 7/02)
5
4. Recreational facilities located on one-acre parcels or larger will contain all
the amenities listed in item 3 above plus one or more of the following sport
court/fields: a)Tennis Court; b) swimming po01; c) full size sport court/field;
d)or other sport facilities determined to be suitable for the neighborhood this
facility is intended to serve, all as determined bV the Zoning Administrator.
Rccreational facilities proposed for i1111 or partial CPF credit shall either contain the
facilities set forth in this section or alternative recreational facilities as approved bv the
Zoning Adminstrator.
(Ord 2732 95 (part), 1998).
19.48.030
Application-Method-Documents required.
A P-C zone may be initiated by one or more owners, by a developer representing said
owners or by the city upon application made in the manner specified in this chapter. (Ord
2732 95 (part), 1998; Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 1854 95 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978;
Ord 128192 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 91 (part), 1969; prior code 933.520(C)(part)).
19.48.040
Application-General development plan required-Contents required.
A. The application shall include a general development plan which shall consist of a
plan diagram and text. The application shall be accompanied by the Required
Fee(s). The plan diagram shall show the following:
I. The topographic character ofthe land;
2. Any major grading intended;
3. The general location of all existing and proposed uses of the land;
4. The approximate location of all traffic ways; except those solely serving
abutting uses;
5. Any public uses, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, open space and
undisturbed natural land; and,
6. The approximate location of different residential densities of dwelling
types.
B. The application shall include a text which indicates:
(R 7/02)
6
"." _.__.-.. .._~,....~....._.- -~._.~. ",-"--'-~--'---"~-'-'--'-"--'--'--'-'--'--"-""--
I. Description of the project, including the boundaries and names of proposed
sectional planning areas;
2. The anticipated sequential development of each section of the development
for which specific uses are intended or for which sectional planning area
plans will be submitted;
3. The approximate area of each sectional planning area of the development
and the area of each separate land use;
4. For residential development or residential areas of any P-C zone
development:
a. The approximate number of dwelling units proposed by type of
dwelling. This may be stated as a range with maximum and
minimum number of units of each type,
b. The approximate total population anticipated in the entire
development and in each sectional planning area. This may be
stated as a range with a maximum and minimum number of persons,
c. The general criteria relating to height, open space, and building
coverage,
d. The number of dwelling units per gross acre proposed for each
sectional planning area of the development,
e. The approximate land area and number of sites proposed for public
use of each type,
f. Where appropriate, the approximate retail sales area space in square
feet and gross area in acres proposed for commercial development
with standards of off-street parking and landscaping and circulation
for vehicles and pedestrians;
5. For commercial or industrial areas of any proposed P-C zone:
a. Types of uses proposed in the entire area and each sectional
planning area thereof,
b. Anticipated employment in the entire development and in each
sectional planning area thereof. This may be stated as a range,
(R 7/02)
7
c. Methods proposed to control or limit dangerous or objectionable
elements, if any, which may be caused or emitted by proposed uses.
Such dangerous or objectionable elements may include fire,
explosion, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other form of air
pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electric or other disturbance, glare,
liquid or solid refuse or waste or other substance, condition or
element which might adversely affect the surrounding area,
d. The approximate standards of height, open space, buffering,
landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking
and loading proposed for the intended structures or uses;
6. For institutional, recreational or other nonresidential uses of any P,C zone:
a. Approximate types of uses proposed in the entire area and each
sectional planning area thereof,
b. Significant applicable information with respect to enrollment,
residence, employment, patients, attendance, and other pertinent
social or economic characteristics of development,
c. The approximate standards of height, open space, buffering,
landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking
and loading, proposed for the intended structures or uses.
d. Determination of the affiOblIlt of acreage required to be designated
for "community purpose facilities" pursuant to Section 19.4g.020(c).
Where recreational facilities ball fields are desired as a conditional
use in CPF land use districts, a "CPF Master Plan," showing the
specific boundaries of the plan and existing and proposed
distribution of CPF lIses within a SPA, GDP or overall Planned
Community shall be considered and approved by the Director of
Planning and incorporated as part of the Planned Community's
General Development Plan(s), Recreational facilities Ball fields
shall not utilize more than 35% of the overall SPA, GDP or Plar.ned
Community CPF acreage requirement. Sites mlwt contain a
minimum of one half (.5) acre and shall featllre at a minimum
(one) multi purpose hard COllrt, (one) childrens play equipment,
(one) picnic table with barbeclle, seating area f{)r community
gatherinh and lawn arca in order to qllalify as CFP acreage. If the
site is ORe acr@ or larger, in addition to containing the facilities
outlined above, the site mllst also contaiR a minimum of one
additional larger facility such as includ@ tennis court(s), swimming
pool(s) or full size sports fi@lds. R@cr@ational facilities proposed for
CPF credit shall either contain the faciliti@s set forth above or
(R 7/02)
8
alternative r@creational facilities as approved by the decision making
body consid@ring the Conditional Use Permit. No park or open
~ credit shall b@ granted for recreational faciliti@s ball fields in
dev@lopments utilizing this option.
Recreational facility land uses shall not utilize more than 35% of the
overall CPF acreage required for CPF Master Plan area. Sites
identifhcr;J targete€! for Recrcational Facilities in CFP land districts
- -
shall be a minimum of one-half acre, and shall meet the minimum
development criteria outlined in Section 19.48.025.H c; !he
MWli9ipal Cede. Recreational facilities proposed for CPF credit will
not receive park or open space credit.
Where recreational /jrs;jlities aT? orooose.d to be 10J;ated in CPF
!Jmd.y,/ie districts. a. c;FP Master Plan is regz;l"red. The Master Plan
shall show the specific boundaries 01 said plan which may be the
SPA, GDP or Planned Community boundaries (or more than one
GDP as deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and
Building); the distribution of existing and proposed CPF
designated parcels within the Master Plan area; and the tabulation of
individual sites acreages which shall be prepared and incorporated
into the Planned Community's Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan
Cind into [he General Development Plan (GDP) if the CFP Master
Plan involves more than one SPA plan. The incorporation of the
CPF Master Plan into the SPA or GDP shall be done through a SPA
or GDP amendment/adoption pursuant to Sections 19.48.080 and
19.48.130.
~. R€grgatieH~al fa@ilit'/ lan@ HElgS 0Rall H@i HtiliZi? msrs iRan J2~/~ €Jftns
@"8rall CPF a@n~age rg€l'.lin~g [@f CPF ~ 1agtef PlaR area. ~itg~
ide:;:ifie[J targetee f@r Re€Jrgati(~Hlal fa€ilities iR CFI> laRa €iistrietg
sRall Be a mi:Rilfl'Am. @f @R@ kalf R€JH1, an€! sRall megt 1R@ miRim'.lm
@~r,'gl@J3mgRt €rit@Fia @HtliIHJ€I ill ~@€Jti€lR 10.12.g2~.W :Jf !hB
~~1!nJ'eirfi! Cede. RIiH~rgati@Ral l'asilitis!<1 J3f@}3€H;g9 [@f CPF €Jr@€lit "'ill
11\31 rSlHJi"@ )3iifl: @f @fH?R E13fl€@ eH?Elit.
(Ord 2732 95 (part), 1998; Ord 2506 91 (part), 1992; Ord 2452A 93, 1991; Ord 1854 95
(part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 92 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 91 (part), 1969;
prior code 933.520(C)(l)).
19.48.050
Findings required for recommendation of establishment.
(R 7/02)
9
The planning commission, after public hearing as provided in Sections 19.12.010 through
19.12.110 of this title, may recommend the establishment of a P-C zone; provided it finds
that the facts submitted with the application and presented at the hearing establish by clear
and convincing evidence that:
A. The proposed development as described by the general development plan IS m
conformity with the provision of the Chula Vista general plan.
B. A planned community developmcnt can be initiated by establishment of specific
uses or sectional planning area plans within two years of the establishment of the
planned community zone.
C. In the case of proposed residential development, that such development will
constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability; and that
it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the
surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools,
playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear
acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
D. In the case of proposed industrial and research uses, that such development will be
appropriate in area, location, and over-all design to the purpose intended; that the
design and development standards are such as to create a research or industrial
environment of sustained desirability and stability; and, that such development will
meet performance standards established by this title.
E. In the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, that
such development will be appropriate in area, location and over,all planning to the
purpose proposed, and that surrounding areas are protected from any adverse
effects from such development.
F. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon.
G. Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the
location(s) proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types
needed at such proposed location(s).
H. The area slllTounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination
and substantial compatibility with said development.
(Ord 2732 95 (part), 1998; Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978; Ord 1281
92 (part), 1970;Ord 1212 91 (part), 1969; prior code 933.520(C)(2)).
19.48.060
P-C zone-Planning Cc;ommission action.
(R 7/02)
10
Following a public hearing, and upon making the required findings, the planning
commission shall make a recommendation to the city council for approval or modified
approval of a proposed P-C zone, and shall also adopt a resolution recommending that the
city council adopt the general development plan as submitted or as modified. Such
recommendation and the recommended general development plan shall be forwarded to the
city council for its consideration. If unable to make the required findings, the planning
commission shall deny said application. An appeal /Tom the action of the planning
commission may be filed in accordance with Section 19.12.110. (Ord 273295 (part),
1998; Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 182691 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 92 (part), 1970; Ord
121291 (part), 1969; prior code 933.520(D)).
19.48.070
P-C zone-City council action-Compliance with General Development
plan required.
Upon rcceipt of a recommendation by the planning commission for approval or modified
approval of any P-C zone, the city council shall set a public hearing on the matter.
A. Following its public hearing, the city council may adopt an amendment to the
zoning ordinance establishing a p,C zone, or may deny the proposed amendment.
The city council shall make no modification of the proposed amendment as
recommended by the planning commission unless and until such modification has
been referred to the planning commission for additional study, report and
recommendation. Such additional study, report and recommendation shall be made
by the planning commission within forty days of the date of the referral, unless and
except as the city council may grant the planning commission additional time for its
review of the matter.
B. At the time of adoption of a P-C zone amendment, the city council shall adopt, by
resolution, the general development plan as defined in Section 19.48.040, except as
provided for in Section 19.48.160.
C. Following the adoption of the P,C zone amcndment and the general development
plan, all development within the district shall thereafter be in substantial conformity
with the adopted general development plan or such modifications thereto as may
have been approved.
(Ord 273295 (part), 1998; Ord 2673,1996; Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 182691 (part),
1978; Ord 128192 (part), 1970; Ord1212 91 (part), 1969; prior code 933.520(E)).
19.48.080
General development plan-Modification requests and procedures.
(R 7/02)
11
A. From time to time it may be necessary and desirable to modify the approved
general development plan. Modification of such a plan may be initiated by the
property owner, his authorized agent or developer.
B. Requests for modifications shall be submitted to the planning commission on a
prescribed form and shall be accompanied by such additional maps, statements, or
other information as may be required to support the proposed modification and the
Required Fee(s).
C. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all proposed
modifications. The planning commission may recommend approval, conditional
approval, or denial of a proposed modification to the city council, which shall
conduct a public hearing thereon.
D. Modification to an approved general development plan shall be made only by
resolution of the city council. Within thirty days after receipt of a recommendation
from the planning commission, the city council shall approve or deny the proposed
modification.
(Ord 273295 (part), 1998; Ord 250691 (part), 1992; Ord 1961 91 (part), 1982; Ord 1854
95 (part), 1979; Ord 182691 (part), 1978).
19.48.090
Sectional planning areas and sectional planning area plans-
Requirements and content.
A. All P,C zones shall be divided into sectional planning areas, except as provided for
in Section 19.48.160. These areas of subcommunities shall be depicted on the plan
diagram of the gencral developmcnt plan of a P-C zone, and shall be addressed in
the text thereof.
B. Sectional planning areas shall be composed of identifiable planning units, within
which common services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated
pattern of land use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable.
Where practicable, sectional plmming areas shall have discernible physical
boundaries.
C. Prior to any development within a sectional planning area, the developer shall
submit a sectional planning area plan, accompanied by the Required Filing Fee(s),
and a completed, official application, to the planning commission for public
hearing, consideration, and recommendatory action, unless such sectional planning
area plans are not required by the text of an adopted general development plan. The
sectional planning area plan shall include the following site utilization plan and
documents.
(R 7/02)
12
1. A site utilization plan of the sectional planning area at a scale of one inch
equals two hundred feet minimum or as determined by the director of
plmming. The plan shall extend a minimum of three hundred feet beyond
the boundaries of the sectional planning area and show the following:
a. The boundaries of the sectional planning area;
b. North arrow and scale;
c. Preliminary grading (including slope ratios and spot elevations
where appropriate);
d. Existing and proposed streets (This shall include all public and
private streets as well as their approximate grades and typical
widths. The names of the existing streets shall be indicated);
e. Existing easements (identify);
f. Existing and proposed riding and hiking trails;
g. Existing and proposed bicycle routes;
h. Pedestrian walks;
L Permanent physical features (i.e., water towers, transmission towers,
drainage channels, etc.);
J. Land uses (include the acreage of each) for;
(I) Parks,
(2) Open space,
(3) Schools (indicate type),
(4) Public and quasi-public facilities (include type),
(5) Residential:
Dwelling type (i.e., single family, duplex, attached, etc.)
Lot lines
Lot size
Number of units (indicate density for each dwelling type)
(R 7/02)
13
Parking (covered or open parking and parking ratio)
Typical floor plans and site plans at a minimum scale of one
inch equals twenty feet. (The site plan shall include
sufficient detail of adjacent development to determine the
relationship of driveways, landscaping, walks, buildings,
etc.)
The building elevations of each type of structure (including
exterior colors and materials)
(6) Commercial:
Location and proposed use of each structure;
The building elevations and floor plans of each structure
(include exterior colors and materials)
Retail floor area (square footage)
Landscaped areas
Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian)
Off, street parking (standards and ratio)
(7) Industrial:
Location and proposed use of each structure;
The building elevations and floor plans of each structure
(include exterior colors and materials)
Retail floor area (square footage)
Landscaped areas
Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian)
Off, street parking (standards and ratio)
(8) Community Purpose Facilities:
Location and acreage of sites, in conformance with Section
19.48.020C.
A specific listing of types of uses to be included in this
category, which are compatible with the permitted uses in
the planned community.
Propel1y development standards, including lmmmum lot
size, setbacks, and height limitations.
2. Development standards (i.c., pem1itted land uses, lot coverage, height and
bulk requirements, signs, etc.) for each land use area and designation.
(R 7/02)
14
3. Development to occur in phases shall be so indicated on the plan. A
skeletal plan shall be prepared for those areas indicated for future
development. The skeletal plan shall indicate circulation, building
locations, preliminary grading, areas devoted to landscaping, density and
parking. The submission of each subsequent phase will require a new
application and the required fee(s) for a modification of a sectional planning
area plan, together with the required detail plans.
(Ord 2732 95 (part), 1998; Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 250691 (part), 1992; Ord 2452A 94,
1991; Ord 196191 (part), 1982; Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 182691 (part), 1978).
19.48.100
Sectional planning area plans-Findings required for recommendation
of approval.
The planning commission, after public hearing, may recommend the approval of a sectional
planning area plan; provided it finds that the facts submitted with the plan and presented at
the hearing establish that:
A. The proposed sectional planning area plan is in conformity with the general
development plan of the P-C zone, any adopted specific plans, and the Chula Vista
general plan and its several elements.
B. The proposed sectional planning area plan would promote the orderly,
sequentialized development of the involved sectional planning area.
C. The proposed sectional plarming area plan would not adversely affect adjacent land
use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality.
(Ord 1854 95 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978).
19.48.110
Sectional planning area plans-Actions of !,Ianning Commission and city
council.
A. I f, from the facts presented, the commission is unable to make the findings set forth
in Section 19.48.100, it shall recommend disapproval of the application.
B. The commission may recommend disapproval of a sectional planning area plan;
may recommend approval of said plan as submitted; or may recommend approval
of said plan subject to specified modifications.
C. The city council, upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission
on a submitted sectional planning area plan, shall conduct a public hearing thereon.
(R 7/02)
15
The city council may approve, deny, or modify the plan. If the city council desires
to modify a sectional planning area plan, such modification shall be referred back to
the planning commission for written recommendations before adoption. The failure
of the commission to report within twenty-eight days after reference shall be
deemed to be approval of said modification.
(Ord ] 854 95 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 91 (part), 1978).
19.48.120
Sectional planning area plans-Effect of plan approval.
The approval of a sectional planning area plan shall constitute a refinement of the adopted
general development plan of the P-C zone. (Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 18261j1 (part),
1978).
19.48.130
Sectional planning area plans-Modification requests and procedures.
A. From time to time, it may be necessary and desirable to modify the approved
sectional planning area plan. Modification of such plan may be initiated by the
property owner, his authorized agent or developer.
B. Requests for modifications shall be submitted to the planning commission on a
prescribed forlll and shall be accompanied by such additional maps, statements, or
other information as may be required to support the proposed modification and the
required fee.
C. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all proposed
modifications. The planning commission may recommend approval, conditional
approval, or denial of a proposed modification to the city council which shall
conduct a public hearing thereon.
D. Modification to an approved sectional planning area plan shall be made only by
resolution of the city council. Within thirty days after receipt of a recommendation
ITOm the planning commission, the city council shall approve or deny the proposed
modification.
(Ord 185495 (part), 1979; Ord 182691 (part), 1978).
19.48.140
P-C Zone-Residential areas not subject to Design Review.
Construction of dwelling units or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings within
residential areas in the P-C zone not subject to design review requirements must comply
(R 7/02)
16
with the provIsIOns outlined in Sections 19.22.060, 19.22.160 and 19.22.170 of this
ordinance. (Ord 214494 (part), 1986).
19.48.150
Recycling collection centers.
Recycling collection centers may be permitted within commercial or industrial areas,
subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.340. (Ord 2252 98 (1988); Ord 2233 98 (1987)).
19.48.160
P-C Zone-Exceptions.
Exceptions to the above requirements include the following:
A. Individual parcels under separate ownership or control, but adjacent to land with an
approved general development plan will not require approval of a general
development plan concurrent with the adoption of the P,C zone. However,
subsequent implementation of the P,C zone pursuant to the provisions contained
within this section, and development of said area will require the approval of one of
the following: a) An amendment to an adjacent general development plan and
adoption and/or amendment of sectional planning area plan which would include
the subject area, or b) A precise plan, as defined in Section 19.14.570 through
19.14.581, for development of the area consistent with the provisions of paragraph
C, below.
B. Any land area that is subject to thc exceptions contained in this section will not be
required to have unified ownership or control upon adoption of the P-C zonc.
However, unified ownership or control as defined in Section 19.48.020, paragraph
B, shall be required of the subjcct land area prior to adoption of an amended general
development plan and adoption and/or amendment of a sectional planning area
plan.
C. Underlying land use regulations, including permitted, accessory and conditional
land uses, for P-C zone areas which do not have an approved general development
plan shall be subject to the provisions of a zoning designation which would be
consistent with the general plan land use designation for the property. Establishing
specific underlying zoning regulations will occur at the time of adoption of the P,C
zone.
(R 7/02)
17
--_.._._~."-_._- --<-- .--- ---.. -_.--~--_._----~---
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENCY STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date:
b
9/25/2002
ITEM TITLE:
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
The Redevelopment Agency Project Area Implementation Plans for the years 2000 - 2004 for Otay
Valley Redevelopment Project Area, adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista (Agency) on November 9, 1999, noted that existing auto wrecking and recycling operations
on Energy Way have Special Use Permits (SUPs) expiring in 2004 - 2006. While recognizing that
auto recycling is a necessary and beneficial land use, the action plan called for the evaluation of the
potential for alternative uses on Energy Way and analysis of considerations for the possible
extension of those SUPs, should extensions be requested.
In 2001, as staff prepared to commence a feasibility study on: 1) the likely needed environmental
remediation of wrecking/recycling yards; 2) conditions required to conduct environmentally sound
operations; and 3) the feasibility of a master redevelopment of Energy Way to higher uses,
additional impetus was added. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQB)
decreed that as of February, 2002 the local municipalities would be held accountable for the Clean
Water Act standards in their jurisdictions. Specifically, cities were directed to enforce compliance
with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards or be subject to
enforcement on behalf of jurisdiction property owners. A key focus of the RWQB is the Gtay River
Valley.
The auto wreckers/recyclers were relocated to Energy Way prior to being annexed into the City of
Chula Vista. When the City annexed the area, it granted SUPs on the uses that expire between 2002
- 2006. One operator - Ecology Auto Wrecking - applied to the Agency to extend its SUP prior to
the start of the feasibility study or the expiration of its current SUP. On May 8, 200 I the Agency
granted the requested extension for 13 years beyond Ecology's 2004 sunset date, or until 2017. The
approach of the sunset date for another operator - Honda-Acura Parts - in 2002 motivated the
Agency to create redevelopment recommendations in a timely manner.
In order to effectively manage this set of circllillstances, an interim tolling ordinance on open
storage land uses was adopted to allow time for study of these uses, which are predominantly in the
Otay Valley and Southwest project areas. The Agency also authorized outside consultants to
conduct an environmental and economic feasibility study of uses on Energy Way and initiated a
study of outdoor storage uses throughout the Redevelopment Project Areas.
This report (Executive Summary included as Attachment 1) summarizes the findings of the
Energy Way feasibility study, updates Agency members and the public on the status of the study
regarding other outdoor storage uses, and suggests a strategy for moving ahead from the study
period to action planning.
Energy Way Feasibility Report
September 25, 2002
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended 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 an Open Storage ordinance by December 2002.
DISCUSSION:
The Redevelopment Agency was interested in considering the feasibility of redeveloping Energy
Way to light industrial uses in conjunction with the expiration of SUPs for the existing auto
wrecking/recycling operations in 2004,2006. After a lengthy competitive selection process
Keyser Marston and Associates (KMA) and Gradient Engineers were selected to conduct both
economic and environmental feasibility studies with that objective in mind, and to give state of
the art performance standards for auto wreckers, in the event the SUPs were extended.
Economic Fea8ibility Study
The Economic Feasibility Study prepared by KMA includes the following:
. Automobile recycling serves a vital role in the preservation of natural resources and
reduces the demand for scarce landfill space, however the industry is under increasing
pressure due to increasingly stringent local and national environmental standards.
. Industrial lands in northern San Diego County and Otay Mesa are being rapidly absorbed,
increasing the likely future market demand for industrial lands in the Otay Valley project
area.
. The absorption period for Energy Way was projected from 2015 - 2025. This coincides
with the sunset of the Otay Valley redevelopment area in 2023 and the expected Otay
Landfill closure in 2024.
. The presence of the Otay Landfill somewhat deters the recruitment of high tech or
research and development type industries to Energy Way.
. The Auto Wrecker/Recyclers should begin to phase out from their current location over
the next several years coordinated with the remaining lifespan of the Otay Landfill
permit.
. Firm guidelines should be implemented and strictly enforced at the renewal of use permits
to protect the environment and enhance the appearance of the properties/operations.
These conditions should include but not be limited to:
- Walter filtration systems where storm water is filtered before going into the sewer
- Extensive firefighting systems, both portable and fixed
Scales to weigh trucks before they exit onto roadways
Street cleaning in front of all operations twice daily
- Enclosure inside a weather proof structure with an impermeable floor
- Ample landscaping and other screening to shield the operation from the street and
the surrounding vicinity
Energy Way Feasibility Report
September 25,2002
Page 3
Environmental Feasibility Study
Gradient Engineers performed the environmental feasibility portion of the study. It was
determined that contamination and spills have occurred at the auto wrecking/recycling operations
and are likely to continue to occur based on current methods of operation. While the scope of
this study did not include the creation of a work plan for remediation or detailed study of each
site, three potential scenarios based on minor to severe contamination were discussed.
Remediation was roughly estimated to cost $1.6 million in the most likely of three clean up
scenarios presented.
Three main factors were discovered as vital to the operation of environmentally safe auto
wrecking /recycling operations:
. How and when fluids are removed from vehicles upon their arrival at a yard;
. The length oftime vehicles are stored on site
. Whether or not consumers (the public) have direct access to the vehicles or whether the
business controls removal of the parts and sells them directly
StratelIT for Ae;ency Response
On August 27,2002, the Agency adopted an extension of the urgency ordinance tolling outdoor
storage uses in Redevelopment Project Areas, to allow staff to complete its analysis of such uses
and to determine appropriate development standards and conditions for continuing and locating
such uses in the project areas.
While the study does not recommend a wholesale near-term effort to redevelop Energy Way,
staff believes strong steps must be taken to upgrade fire prevention, human safety and
stormwater run-off controls at these sites. Aesthetic appeal of the area must be enhanced, given
its proximity to the Otay Ranch, Coors Amphitheater, Knott's Soak City, homes nearby in South
San Diego and the Chula Vista Auto Park. During interdepartmental inspections and
discussions, a strategy was developed to address all of these issues:
. To create a new, state of the art, list of conditions under which auto
wrecking/recycling operations must operate throughout the City of Chu1a Vista's
redevelopment project areas.
· To communicate with operators about the new conditions and allow a reasonable
period oftime to comply.
. To seek Agency Board support for strict, universal and consistent enforcement by
pertinent City departments of the conditions, once agreed to and imposed.
Staff proposes to return to the Agency prior to the end of 2002 with an Open Storage Ordinance.
The ordinance will include a section on Auto Wrecking/Recycling uses including the state of the
art conditions referenced in the strategy above. Currently staff is compiling a list of
recommended conditions to apply to any SUP extensions requested by existing auto wreckers. It
Energy Way Feasibility Report
September 25, 2002
Page 4
is envisioned that those recommendations will, with a period of time given for compliance,
gradually seek to improve the environmental and visual condition of the Energy Way area and
similar areas throughout the redevelopment project areas to match any other industrial park, with
operations housed within attractive buildings allowing vital service functions to be continued
without adverse impacts on the environment, property values or to surrounding land uses.
J:\COMMDEV\PatriciaB\PC AGENDA STATEMENT-Energy Way Feasibility Study.doc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - CHULA VISTA AUTO RECYCLERS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objective
This report has been prepared for the City of Chula Vista in an effort to evaluate the
potential environmental remediation that may be necessary to convert property occupied
by auto recyclers into a condition consistent with marketable light industrial parcels; and,
second, to assess the level of demand in the industrial marketplace for the properties
and estimate the likely absorption schedule based on current and forecasted market
conditions.
B. Background
The study area is located within the 771-acre Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
Area. At the time of adoption, this area represented the largest resource of under-
developed urbanized property in the City that could be used for industrial development,
thereby improving the City's employment and economic base. Economic forecasts at
the time of the plan adoption projected five acres per year absorption. During the
decade of the 1990's, over 80 acres were developed.
The City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency's Five Year Implementation Plan calls
for the Agency to examine redevelopment options for lands currently occupied by auto
recyclers. The lands to be studied are located east of Interstate 805 along Energy Way
in an area of Chula Vista north of Coors Amphitheatre, and Knotts Soak City waterpark.
At the present time, there is some inconsistency between the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, which calls for Research and Limited Industrial Uses (ILR) on the sites,
and the current zoning that allows auto dismantling under conditional/special use permit.
Existing auto recycling operations in the area continue to operate under special use
permits. The Agency would like to evaluate the redevelopment potential of the Energy
Way properties prior to the completion of the City's General Plan Update and expiration
of the special use permits.
C. Key Findings
The KMA Team concludes that the following are the key findings and possible actions
for redevelopment of the auto recycling land on Energy Way.
. The City should begin to phase out the auto recyclers from their current location over
the next several years coordinated with the remaining lifespan of the landfill's permit.
..^_. ._..._-_.,_..,----_..",'--,,~_.__._..__._~-
. Environment remediation costs related to the site do not appear to be significant.
Environmental issues would not significantly impede relocation of the Energy Way
auto recyclers.
. The City should implement firm guidelines regarding the issuance and renewal of
use permits.
. The City should strictly enforce the newly adopted guidelines.
. There are numerous acres of land that are vacant and available for industrial
development within the City of Chula Vista.
. The City should consider expanding the lifespan of the redevelopment project 10
years under SS211. This is available for all plans adopted prior to 1994. The City
should be careful in this decision. as the determination of blight is more difficult since
the enactment of AS 1290.
II. METHODOLOGY
Assessment of Redevelopment Opportunity
Initial research efforts focused on researching the history of the auto recycling industry
and determining the state of the industry today in the County of San Diego. In addition,
KMA looked at the demand for industrial space and land absorption in the project area.
KMA undertook the following tasks in order to identify and evaluate the redevelopment
opportunity.
. KMA and Gradient Engineers met with City staff to clarify the City's goals for the
study.
. KMA researched the auto recycling industry, interviewed several owners of auto
recycling businesses, toured auto' recycling sites, toured the subject site, and
interviewed a representative from the county association of auto recyclers.
. KMA surveyed industrial brokers and other real estate professionals with expertise
in this area of the City of Chula Vista and South County.
. KMA analyzed both regional and local absorption trends for industrial land.
. KMA reviewed regional and local land sale comparables for industrial land, both
raw/unimproved and finished lots.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document02080;ndh
11216.005,001
July 11, 2002
Page 2
III. OVERVIEW OF AUTO RECYCLING MARKET
A. Auto Recycling Industry
Auto recycling has been around since the first cars rolled off the production lines and
represents the 161h largest industry in the United States with over $5 billion in annual
sales. It is considered the most successful recycling industry ever, recovering over 75%
of a vehicle's useable parts and resources.
Automotive recycling serves a vital role in the preserving of natural resources and
reducing the demand for scarce landfill space. The industry recycles over 4 million
motor vehicles annually, in the United States and Canada alone. Automotive recyclers
must abide by stringent local and national regulations on dealing with waste generated
by salvaged automobiles. Several individual auto recyclers have instituted their own
unique programs to further reduce the potential effects of harmful materials to their
businesses and communities.
B. Auto Recycling in San Diego County
The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) is the voice of the international autornotive
recycling industry and was founded in 1943. Within this organization there are state
organizations. The State of California Auto Disrnantlers Association (SCADA)
represents the State of California, and has 500 members and 9 chapters. The chapter in
San Diego County is the San Diego County Auto Recyclers Association (SDCARA), and
was formed in 1969.
These organizations are the only professionally licensed, and qualified industry, to
properly dismantle vehicles for the purpose of selling recyclable parts. In San Diego
County there exists two types of auto recyclers. The first type is the self,service
recycler, and the second type is the conventional auto recycler. The self,service
recycler is an operation where the consumer pays a fee to access the automotive
storage area, and the consumer searches the vehicles and extracts the part(s)
themselves. The conventional auto recycler is an operation where the recycler removes
the parts from the vehicles. At this point the parts are placed on shelves within a
building and sold. The majority of auto recyclers in the County are conventional
recyclers.
Auto recyclers generate millions of dollars to the city and state through payroll taxes,
income taxes, sales tax, property tax, business tax, and numerous fees and licenses
through various state agencies. In addition to the financial obligations of the recyclers,
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Documenl 02060; ndh
11216.005.001
July 11, 2002
Page 3
they are also required to adhere to numerous environmental and health regulations.
Auto recycling is one of the nations most heavily regulated industries. Auto recyclers are
accountable to local, state, and federal regulatory bodies for the protection of the
environment through the proper recycling or disposal of all automotive related hazardous
materials, such as gasoline, oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid, and brake fluid. Every
reusable part is removed from the vehicie and recycled.
Today's responsible auto recycler makes a conscious effort to benefit their community
by keeping it environmentally safe and friendly. In regards to the subject site, it is
evident that not all auto recyclers adhere to the same level of responsibility. A few of the
operators on Energy Way have made significant investments in protecting the
environment, disposing of the hazardous waste, and maintaining a neat and clean
appearance from the street. Unfortunately, there are an equal number of operators who
have chosen to disregard the conditions of their use permits. This is one of the many
issues that must be rectified if the City chooses to allow the auto recyclers to continue to
operate.
The future of the auto recycling industry seems ambiguous. The environmental lobby,
such as the Baykeepers and Surfriders, will seemingly remain heavy in pushing for more
legislation, and most likely the regulations affecting the recyclers will become more
burdensome. As the price of compliance becomes heavier more individual businesses
will be forced to close or risk the penalties of non,compliance.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Gradient Engineers, Inc. conducted an evaluation of environmental issues associated
with the potential redevelopment of the area around Energy Way in the City of Chula
Vista. The environmental evaluation was focused on two issues, environmental
remediation costs and regulatory issues associated with current auto recycling activities.
It is highly probable that necessary remedial actions at this site will include excavation of
soil with either on-site or off,site disposal or treatment. If groundwater contamination is
found, remediation could involve on-site treatment or treating it in place. Three
conceptual and preliminary cost estimates were developed for the purpose of providing a
range of costs that could be incurred in remediating this area: Best Case $500,000;
Worst Case $30,300,000; and Best Estimate $1,600,000. All of these estimates are
based on very limited and indirect information and. are therefore. subiect to sianificant
marains of error.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document02080;ndh
11216.005.001
July 11, 2002
Page 4
Releases have been and continue to be a serious problem at these facilities. Operating
without frequent releases will be very difficult for these facilities. It will be almost
impossible for the companies that allow the public access to the cars. Prevention of
releases will require that all of the fluids from a vehicle and the battery be removed in a
controlled environment before the vehicle is stored in the open. This will require
significant capital investment in equipment for collection, handling and storage of the
fluids and batteries. It will also add significant labor and operating costs. This is a
significant compliance issue.
Stormwater source BMPs that are available for the auto recycling industry also focus on
prompt removal of fluids from the vehicles, proper management of the fluids, use of drip
pans for leaks, proper parts cleaning methods and good housekeeping and record
keeping. One list developed by the Auto Recyclers Association and one developed by
the State of Florida are included in the appendices.
There are several issues related to the application of BMPs at these Energy Way
facilities. First, unless soil remediation is completed, runoff from these areas will require
treatment. Second, with the large number of cars stored for lengthy periods of time, the
use of drip pans to control leaks should not be considered a BMP. This is particularly
true for the sites where the public has access to the cars. The BMP for this type of
storage should be complete spill capture and collection. This would mean an impervious
surface with protection from runoff, such as an enclosed area. In general, most of the
source control BMPs will not work well with these large facilities storing cars for long
periods of time. It is going to be extremely difficult and expensive for these facilities to
comply with the stormwater requirements.
Relocation of the Energy Way auto recyclers to another location within the City would
not be significantly impeded by environmental issues. The key factor will be the City
requiring proper construction and operating scenarios from the beginning. This will most
likely preclude large facilities like those currently being used. It will require short storage
times and much smaller inventories. It will also most likely require all dismantling and
handling and storage of fluids to be conducted inside a building.
V. INDUSTRIAL MARKET ANALYSIS
A. San Diego County
San Diego County has experienced tremendous growth since 1996 after the economy
recovered from the recession of the early 1990's. This strong growth in the economy
continued through the year 2000 when the economy began to slow.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document020BO: ndh
11216.005.001
July 11, 2002
Page 5
Burnham Real Estate Services reports that the San Diego County industrial and
research and development (R&D) markets are holding steady despite a slowing national
economy. The San Diego commercial real estate markets are more stable than most
major markets in the U.S. Clearly, companies are taking a more cautious posture given
today's economic and political climate.
Net absorption is down in all commercial sectors from the record-breaking years of 1999
and 2000, but vacancy rates are fluctuating only slightly. Vacancy rates are slightly
higher today, but real estate experts expected this, because the markets need time to
absorb the large amounts of new space that has come on line since 1999. The San
Diego County industrial market alone has absorbed just over 1.04 million square feet
(SF) of space so far this year. By the end of 2001 , the market should post 1.2 million SF
of net absorption. This is a respectable level of activity, given current worid events and
when compared with the record 4.6 million SF of net absorption that the industrial sector
posted in 2000.
B. South County
The South County ranks as the third-largest industrial region in the greater San Diego
area with more than 10 million SF of space - a number that experts project to rise to as
much as 14 million SF by 2005. One factor that is helping lead the way in South
County's growth is the planned construction of State Route (SR) 125. When this is
coupled with the areas affordability compared to other more expensive submarkets, it
becomes evident that this area will most likely see an increase in building and leasing
activity over the next few years.
In 2000, Burnham Real Estate reported that the region led all San Diego County
submarkets in net absorption with approximately 950,000 SF, and ranked second in the
category of new construction. As illustrated in Table 5. South County followed the
countywide trend during the first quarter 2001 with a notable decline in net absorption as
companies postponed or scaled back expansion plans. There was a slow return to
stability through the second quarter of 2001, which was lead by the South County
markets of Chula Vista and Otay Mesa with about 267,000 SF absorbed. Through third
quarter 2001, South County has absorbed just over 109,000 SF of space. It is believed
that cost-oriented tenants who want quality manufacturing and distribution warehouses
will increasingly look to South County to meet those needs.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document 02080: ndh
11216_005.001
July 11,2002
Page 6
C. Chula Vista and Otay Mesa
Otav Mesa
Demand Is solid and growing steadily in the Otay Mesa market, states Burnham Real
Estate Services. High quality, well-designed buildings are leasing up rapidly, but
demand for less attractive and less functional projects is weaker.
Chula Vista
Prospects for build-out of industrial uses in the subject area are strengthened by an
impending shortage of developable land in the major submarkets in San Diego County.
The City of Chula Vista recognizes this imbalance between industrial demand and land
availability. As a result the City Council has adopted policies to preserve and expand
the local supply of deliverable industrial land.
As land on Otay Mesa is absorbed, it is inevitable that the demand for industrial land in
the South Bay will shift to areas within Chula Vista. Chula Vista represents one of the
few areas remaining where assembled land with strong freeway accessibility is not a
problem. Burnham Real Estate Services reports that through 3'd Quarter 2001 Chula
Vista had 41 industrial projects with a total of 3.6 million SF of space. Of this space, only
approximately 300,000 SF is vacant, or about 8.3%. When the vacancy rates of Chula
Vista are compared to the major submarkets of Carlsbad (16.7%) and Vista (15.5%), it is
evident that Chula Vista is a prime location for industrial development.
Conclusion
In addition to Otay Mesa and Chula Vista having more available land for industrial
development than other submarkets, another factor pushing it towards the forefront of
industrial development is the construction of high,quality residential neighborhoods. The
maturing communities of Eastlake, Rancho Del Rey, and Sunbow, and the opening of
Otay Ranch, Lomas Verdes, and Roiling Hills Ranch is introducing new buyers to the
South County, and establishing a large, highly educated work force. With the average
price per home being an estimated $100,000 less than comparable homes in North
County, it stands to reason that new, established, and out'of'state businesses would
choose to relocate to this area of the County.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document 02080: ndh
11216.005.001
July 11, 2002
Page 7
VI. REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The strategy for redevelopment of this portion of land must take into consideration
severai aspects. First, the Otay Landfill (County) occupies approximately 265 acres
directly adjacent to the auto recycling property on Energy Way. The County currently
holds a permit allowing it to operate the landfill until the year 2023, which seemingly sets
the land use pattern of the area for the foreseeable future. The landfill could be seen as
a deterrent for light industrial, high-tech, and other high-profile users and delay the
development of the site for these specific uses. The noise and odor generated from the
landfill could seemingly discourage some developers and prospective tenants, such as
research and development companies, from locating in the area.
Another factor that could lead to the quicker absorption of the subject site is the growing
shortage of available industrial land in North County. Over the past several years, North
County has seen rapid growth and absorption of its industrial land, partly due to the
quick emergence of the biotech and high-tech industries. The supply of land in these
selected North County cities is projected to experience a significant decrease between
1995 and 2010. As the land in North County disappears over the next few years,
companies will be faced with the challenge of locating new areas for growth and
development. It is reasonable to state that the absorption of the auto recyclers land
could occur as early as 2015, but as late as 2025 unless the City elects to take
redevelopment action.
The City's ability and willingness to fast track processing for high priority projects would
seemingly change the market status of many available properties in the City. Also, if the
City offers financial assistance. and incentives to prospective developers of the auto
recyclers land the timing of absorption of these parcels could be increased. In addition,
as for any land area, price is a driving factor in the rate of absorption. If the tenant is
price sensitive, the subject site's location and previous use becomes less of a deterrent
to more heavy industrial users, Le. trucking companies.
The auto recyclers on Energy Way are operating under conditional and special use
permits. Some of these permits expire as early as 2003, but others that have been
renewed recently have a time frame that allows them to operate through 2017. For
those operators whose permits expire, the City could enact a policy where these permits
are reviewed on an annual basis, and only reissued if they are in full compliance with the
recommended guidelines.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyciers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
DOGument020BO;ndh
11216.005.001
July 11. 2002
Page 8
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The KMA Team recommends the following actions.
. That the City begin to phase out the auto recyclers from their current location, and
the remaining lifespan of the landfill's permit. The industrial data presented earlier
indicates that there is an ample supply of land on Otay Mesa and in Chula Vista to
be absorbed during the transition of the land along Energy Way.
. That the City implement and strictly enforce guidelines that protect the environment
and enhance the appearance of the property/operation. These conditions consist
of, but are not limited to, the following:
. Water filtration systems where storm water is filtered before going into the sewer.
. Extensive fire fighting systems, both portable and fixed.
. Scales to weigh trucks before they go on to the highways.
. Street cleaning in front of all operations twice daily.
. Ample landscaping and other screening to shield the operation from the street
and the surrounding vicinity.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The auto recycling industry currently faces a tenuous future. The pressure confronting
the industry not only comes from local entities, but also state and federal agencies. In
today's atmosphere of environmental concerns, the industry will encounter many new
regulations and orders of compliance to ensure the protection of the environment.
Locally, this entails placing restrictions on the operator's conditional and special use
permits. These restrictions consist of compliance with the conditions outlined in Section
VI of this report. These conditions would be strictly enforced, and non-compliance would
result in the operator's permit being revoked or not renewed. For example, the City
should place a limit on the duration of these permits. The permits should be renewable
on an annual basis; thereby, allowing the City to monitor the auto recyclers and invoke a .
timeline on compliance with environmental regulations and City codes.
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document 02080; ndh
11216.005.001
July 11, 2002
Page 9
Another obstacle the industry is encountering is the County's plan to relocate the auto
recyclers to one area of the County. The auto recycling industry is currently
experiencing a downturn in the number of recyciers. The County plan does not offer
financial assistance toward the purchase of land or for relocation expenses. The
monetary hardship of purchasing or leasing the land, and the expense of relocating,
combined with the cost of compliance with environmental regulations could force several
of these recyclers in to bankruptcy.
July 11,2002
Page 10
Executive Summary - Chula Vista Auto Recyclers
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Document02080;ndh
11216_005.001