The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/07/24 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 12, 2002 and July 10, 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 03-03; Eastlake Village Center North Improvement Agreement. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 31, 2002 Special Planning Commission meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 01-18; Precise Plan for 12 town homes in six duplex buildings at 777 Ada Street. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 31, 2002 Special Planning Commission meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS 02-24 & ZAV 02-05; Special Use Permit for an automobile sales lot, and a zone variance for 1.) a 420 sf sales office to be located on the rear property line where a 10-foot setback is required, and 2.) a reduction in the landscape setback to 10 feet along the frontage (Broadway and Silvas Street) where the requirement is 15 feet per the Montgomery Specific Plan. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 31, 2002 Special Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission - 2- July 24, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum floor area ration and to encroach into the required erear and side yard setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant: Conrado Cabal bag. Staff recommends public hearing be continued to the August 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 5. 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 Village Two from the Planned Community (PC) Zone to Public/Quasi-Public (P-Q) Zone for the purpose of constructing a 12,000 square-foot Fire Station (City of Chula Vista Fire Station #7) as a necessary public facility for the Otay Ranch development and the City of Chula Vista. Applicant - The City of Chula Vista Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the August 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 6. ACTION ITEM: Acceptance of report and recommendation concerning the proposed fourth amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and determining its conformity to the City's General Plan. Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development Specialist 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 02-05; Consideration of adoption of an ordinance amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89 relating to the location, design and construction of wireless communication facilities. Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-50; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Nextel Communications to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at 525-549 Hunte Parkway - Auld Golf Course. Project Manager: Lynette Tessitory-Lopez, Associate Planner 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-42; Conditional Use Permit proposal for a detached, 926 square foot garage with a 920 second accessory dwelling unit Planning Commission - 3 - July 24, 2002 above in a Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone. The project would be situated behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 250 K Street. The second-story unit is in compliance with State government code regulations 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)(-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) 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, July 10, 2002 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Absent: Staff Present: Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Cortes, McCann, Willet Commissioners Thomas and Hall Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Luis Hernandez Michael Walker, Associate Planner Mary Venables, Associate Planner Stan Donn, Associate Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum floor area ration and to encroach into the required erear and side yard setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant: Conrado Cabalbag. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) to continue public hearing to July 24,2002. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Auld Golf Course wireless facility Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) to continue public hearing to July 24, 2002. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Wireless Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 10,2002 Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) to continue public hearing to July 24, 2002. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS 02-24 & ZAV 02-05; Special Use Permit for an automobile sales lot, and a zone variance for 1.) a 420 sf sales office to be located on the rear property line where a 10-foot setback is required, and 2.) a reduction in the landscape setback to 10 feet along the frontage (Broadway and Silvas Street) where the requirement is 15 feet per the Montgomery Specific Plan. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) to continue public hearing to July 24,2002. Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-42; Conditional Use Permit proposal for a detached, 926 square foot garage with a 920 second accessory dwelling unit above in a Single-Family Residence (R-1) zone. The project would be situated behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 250 K Street. The second-story unit is in compliance with State government code regulations 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)(-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) to continue public hearing to July 24, 2002. Motion carried. 6. ACTION ITEM: Consideration of a resolution of denial for wireless facility at 455 Quail Court (Applicant: Verizon Wireless) Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie. MSC (CastanedaIWillett)(5-0-2) to accept resolution of denial for wireless facility at 455 Quail Court. Motion carried. 7. ACTION ITEM: Consideration of a resolution of denial for PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to permit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory second dwelling unit behind the primary single-family residence, at 736 Church Avenue. Applicant: Daniel Contreras Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 10, 2002 MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (4-1-2-0) to adopt resolution of denial PCC-02-13. Motion carried with Commissioner Cortes voting against. 8. Public Hearing: PCC; Conditional Use Permit to establish a dwelling group by adding a second single-family dwelling on a lot that contains an existing single-family dwelling in a single- Family Residence (R-1) zone located at 108 Corte Maria Avenue. Background: Michael Walker, Associate Planner reported that the property is a corner lot and is 14,242 sf with an existing 1,884 sf single-family dwelling situated in the central/west area of the property. The proposal consists of a 2,110 sf single story, single-family dwelling and a 420 sf detached 2-car garage. The second dwelling unit would establish a dwelling group, which is an allowed use within an R-1 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Section 19.04.076 of the Municipal Code defines a dwelling group as two or more detached dwellings located on the same parcel of land under one ownership and having a yard or court in common. The lot size meets the requirement for a second dwelling unit and also meets the required setbacks and building separation. Section 19.62.170 of the Municipal Code requires a 400 sf minimum two-car garage for single- family dwellings. The proposed new dwelling includes an attached garage that satisfied the requirement and the proposed detached garage is for the existing single-family dwelling since it does not currently have the required parking because the original attached garage was converted to livable space. Staff Recommendation: that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-02-15 approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing a dwelling group in an R-1 zone based on conditions and findings contained therein. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Willett inquired if there would be an expiration date to this CUP, if it were granted. Elizabeth Hull responded that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land. When the land is sold, the CUP remains as long as the buildings are there and they are in compliance with the terms of the CUP; this CUP does not have a sunset provision. Public Hearing Opened 6:35 Earl Hopkins, 124 Corte Maria, Chula Vista, CA, neighbor, stated he opposes this project because it would change the characteristic of this R-1 neighborhood. He further stated that there are loud parties, excessive vehicles, and a person living in a motor home, he therefore, urged the Commission to oppose the project. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 10, 2002 Lupe Rivera, owner, addressed Mr. Hopkins allegations and clarified that there are no loud parties, but in the past year, she did have a birthday party for her 2 year old grandchild and a graduation party for her daughter. She further stated that although she does have a motor home parked on her property, there is no one living in it. Additionally, she stated that the new home would be her dream home, which she would occupy, and the existing house would be for her daughter and grandchild. Public Hearing closed 6:40 Discussion: Commissioner's Castaneda and McCann stated that although the code allows and the proposal meets the group housing provision, they are concerned that the project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. They further stated that perhaps splitting the parcel would be another option. Commissioner O'Neill stated that unless the existing house is demolished, looking at the site plan footprint, a lot split would be close to impossible to accomplish. Commissioner Willett inquired if staff had suggested to the applicant splitting the lot. John Schmitz, Principal Planner stated that staff does not generally go out of its way to advise people how to use other sections of the Municipal Code, if a particular section of the Code applies to their proposal. This section of the Municipal Code, which was established in the 80's, was most likely designed precisely for this type of situation. It's a method for allowing development at the density that is allowed under the General Plan, of which, this project meets the density requirement (1 unit per 7,000 sf). This section of the municipal code enables the applicant to develop their property without extraordinary measures and hardship, like demolishing part or all of the existing house. Under the present configuration, a lot split would not be easily accomplished. Commissioner O'Neill stated that his concern is that this property be converted into rental units, therefore, he would recommend that the utilities and meters not be split, but rather, remain under the single property owner, which would enable her to retain more control and the family group/compound characteristic would not be compromised. Commissioner Cortes stated that he is not supportive of changing the character of a neighborhood and believes in maintaining the integrity of the single-family residential R-1 zone. However, the fact remains that there are numerous irregular lots scattered through Chula Vista, particularly in the western part of the City, and this ordinance, most likely, was crafted to address these irregular lots, enabling the property owners to develop their properties to the fullest extent, while retaining the density called for under the General Plan. He, therefore, stated that he concurs with Chair O'Neill's comments on retaining the utilities under a single ownership and is supportive of this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - July 10,2002 MSC (O'Neill/Cortes) (2-3-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-02- 15 approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing a dwelling group in an R-1 zone based on conditions and findings contained therein, with the additional condition that all on- site utilities be placed underground with one common metering for both units. Motion failed with Commissioner Castaneda, McCann and Willett voting against the motion. MSC (CastanedalWillett) (5-0-2) that this item be continued in order to allow the applicant time to work with staff to consider redesigning the project or look into other options previously addressed I.e. a lot split. Motion carried. 9. ACTION ITEM: Acceptance of report and recommendation concerning the proposed fourth amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and determining its conformity to the City's General Plan. Project Manager: Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development Specialist Commissioners Castaneda and Cortes stepped down from the dais due to a conflict of interest, therefore, there leaving no quorum, this item was continued to July 24, 2002. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: a) GPA 02-07; Amendmentto the City ofChula Vista General Plan to change the land use designation of approximately 16.4 acres at southeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and SR-125 freeway future alignment. b) PCM 01-15; Amendments to the Eastlake II General Development Plan and Eastlake II Planned Community Districts Regulations and Land use Districts Map. Also, adopt a new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and associated regulatory documents for the 68.1 acres to be known as the "Village Center North Supplemental SPA". Background: Stan Donn, Associate Planner gave an overview of the proposal as outlined in the staff report. He stated that in 1992 Council approved amendments to accommodate a 485,000 sf medical center complex at the northwest corner of Otay Lakes Road and Fenton Street within a planning area known as the Eastlake I Activity Center. This Activity Center incorporates three major components: 1) a neighborhood shopping center; 2) a mixed-use entertainment and service oriented village center; and 3) a major hospital/medical center. The Kaiser medical center project was never built and the property was re-acquired by The Eastlake Company who is proposing to re-define the northern portion of the Activity Center into three separate independent parcels ties together with other surrounding property'uses by urban design and amenities. This new Supplemental SPA plan will replace the previously adopted Activity Center Precise Plan Guidelines and all other associated regulatory documents. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 10, 2002 The land use plan shows as 16.4 acre parcel to the north (E-1 0) which is proposed a Research and Limited Manufacturing. To the south is a 38.1 acre parcel (VC-1) with a Retail/Commercial designation. To the east is a 13.6 acre parcel (VC-2) designated at Professional Administrative with complimentary ancillary commercial uses. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution GPA 02-07/PCM 01-15, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS 01-42) issued for the project; and 2. Adopt Resolution GPA 02-07/PCM 01-15, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastlake II General Development Plan and Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map. Also, adopt the new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan to be known as the Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA. Discussion: Commissioner Willett stated that the traffic analysis report states the east, north and southbound left-turn lanes at atay Lakes Road/Eastlake Parkway may not be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic volumes. He asked if any consideration has been given to adding an extra lane. Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer responded that detailed traffic studies have been conducted and the project has been conditioned to mitigate those impacts. For example, an additional lane will be added (going from 3 to 4 going westbound) on atay Lakes Road from Eastlake Parkway to the freeway. Additionally, Eastlake Parkway will be widened with an additional lane until the point of one of the main driveway entrances to the commercial center. There will also be major modifications to the traffic signal at the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and atay Lakes Road and significant modifications will be the intersection of Eastlake Parkway and Fenton to improve access and add a traffic signal. Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with on-site circulation and it appears there's not enough queing into the center, which would then back-up traffic onto surface streets. Public Hearing Opened 7:45 Guy Asaro, Eastlake Company, stated that the traffic enhancements and improvements are designed to operate and alleviate some of the traffic concerns. An additional lane is being added on atay Lakes and in addition a right turn lane is being added on Eastlake Parkway. Functionally how that operates is that when SR-125 is constructed, that added lane would be a trap lane solely to take traffic along atay Lakes Road and to put it northbound into SR-125. The Eastiake Parkway right turn lane is a free-flow turn lane so that it will not stop at that traffic signal, it will be able to keep a free-flow right turn lane into this trap lane and get cars conveyed into the roadway. In terms of queing and on-site circulation, there is a substantial amount of space available for Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - July 10,2002 queing of cars both for ingress and egress along the Lowes parking lot area thereby avoiding congestion onto the public thoroughfare. Colton Sudberry, 5465 Morehouse Drive, Ste. 260, San Diego, CA 92121 with Sudberry Properties stated there is a proposed Italian restaurant on the west side of the center and an Island Restaurant on the east side. Public Hearing closed 7:50 MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution GPA 02- 07/PCM 01-15, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS 01-42) issued for the project. Motion carried. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution GPA 02- 07/PCM 01-15, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastlake II General Development Plan and Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map. Also, adopt the new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan to be known as the Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA. Motion carried. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-24; Consideration of amendments to the Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, to incorporate Section 11.7 Air Quality Improvement Plan into each of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. Background: Mary Venables, Associate Planner stated that for the Commission's consideration is the Air Quality and Energy Conservation Pilot Program, including SPA Plan amendments to incorporate the Air Quality Improvement Plans into three projects. The three projects participating in the study are the same three projects that are participating in the Water Conservation Plan. They are Eastlake III (WoodsNistas), Otay Ranch Village 6 and 11. During the course of the pilot study AS 970 was signed into law requiring the California Energy Commission to adopt new Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings, which resulted in more stringent construction requirements to achieve approximately a 12% increase in energy conservation beyond what was previously required. Chula Vista does have some local requirements and programs beyond federal and State regulations. The Growth Management Ordinance requires an Air Quality Improvement Plan be prepared for all major projects 15 du's or greater. The C02 Reduction Plan was adopted in November of 2000 and contains a number of action measures that are related to land use and energy efficiency that can be applied to new development. The implementation of these action measures the responsibility of the Planning Division and includes such items as site design with pedestrian and bicycle and transit Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - July 10, 2002 orientation. The remaining measures in the C02 Plan are related to municipal programs and facilities that are managed by the City Special Operations Section. The Greenstar Building Incentive Program is one of the C02 reduction plan action members being implemented by the Planning Division. This program encourages builders to participate in energy-efficient building programs that increase energy efficient beyond the Title 24 Energy Code requirements. These are programs such as Comfort Wise and the New California Energy Star Program sponsored by SDG&E. Builders are rewarded for their voluntary participation with priority building permit processing. The developers of the three projects agreed to participate in a pilot study to evaluate methods and improve air quality and energy conservation. In March 2001, the City Council retained Criterion Planners/Engineers to provide consulting services to prepare a computer model and report and prepare air quality improvement plans for the three projects. The Eastlake Company agreed to implement two of the options and those are the Title 24 Exceedence and tree planning. In the Eastlake Woods there will be 72 homes constructed using one of the building efficiency programs and there will also be 255 homes constructed using the new SDG&E Energy Star Program. All of these homes will exceed the Title 24 regulations by 15%. The Eastlake Company has also agreed to plant 855 additional trees to offset C02 emissions. The Otay Ranch Village 6 is owned by two developers (McMillin Land Development and The Otay Ranch Company). The portion owned by McMillin, 482 homes will exceed Title 24 by 10%. McMillin is developing its own efficiency program in order to achieve this. In addition, McMillin has also agreed to plant an additional 244 trees and the Otay Ranch Company has agreed to plant 548 additional trees. The developer of Otay Ranch Village Eleven (Brookfield Shea Otay) chose not to implement the options identified in the study, but instead agreed to install several construction level design features that were not modeled in the pilot study. For example, provision of outside electrical outlets to encourage use of electric powered yard maintenance equipment, gas connections for fireplaces and 50 gallon or smaller water heaters. Although Village Eleven's efforts are taken into account, the City took a conservative approach and did not give energy and air quality improvement credits to this project since the City was unable to measure the proposed features. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: . Recommend that the City Council accept the INDEX Pilot Test: SPA Air Quality Improvement Plans, June 2002 report prepared for the City by Criterion Planners/Engineers Inc. and direct staff to draft Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines; Adopt Resolution, PCM-02-24A recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Eastiake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein; . Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - July 10, 2002 . Adopt Resolution PCM 02-248 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein; and . Adopt Resolution PCM 02-24C recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein. Discussion: Commissioner Castaneda asked what requirements are in place that will give some assurance that the trees and vegetation will be there in the future when they've reached the maturity level that it takes in order for it to be most beneficial. Ms. Venables responded that with the exception of the trees that the Otay Ranch Company is putting in their single family lot, the rest of the trees will be in slop areas and medians, essentially areas that will be maintained or overseen by a homeowners associations or a facilities districts; when trees die, they are replaced. Public Hearing Opened and Closed 8:25. MSC (Willett/McCann) (5-0-2) That the Planning Commission: . Recommend that the City Council accept the INDEX Pilot Test: SPA Air Quality Improvement Plans, June 2002 report prepared for the City by Criterion Planners/Engineers Inc. and direct staff to draft Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines; . Adopt Resolution, PCM-02-24A recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein; . Adopt Resolution PCM 02-248 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein; and . Adopt Resolution PCM 02-24C recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan incorporating the required Air Quality Improvement Plan into the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in accordance with the findings contained therein. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - July 10, 2002 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 8:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24,2002. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 12, 2002 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Thomas, Willett McCann Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Caroline Lewis, Planning Technician 1/1 Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney 1/ Absent: Staff Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Willett/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of May 8,2002 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZA V 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum floor area ration and to encroach into the required rear and side yard setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant Conrado Cabalbag. Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to July 10,2002. MSC (CorteslThomas) to continue public hearing to July 10, 2002. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to permit an existing second dwelling unit at an accessory second dwelling unit behind the primary single-family residence at 736 Church Avenue. Applicant Daniel Contreras. Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner reported that this item was continued from the May ath Planning Commission meeting to allow staff the opportunity to relay to Mr. Contreras, who was not present at that meeting, the Commission's concerns and position, which was that they are not interested in approving or further considering the request until the garage was returned to its original condition as a parking area. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 12, 2002 Staff met with Mr. Contreras twice since that meeting and he expressed a desire to explain his proposal to convert the garage/workshop area into the accessory unit in phases. Public Hearing Opened 6:13. Daniel Contreras, 334 Bay Leaf Drive, Chula Vista, stated he understood the Commission's concerns and directive to first convert the garage to its original use, however, he indicated that he would like to obtain one building permit to do all of the work together phasing the work in three stages, with the garage conversion in the second phase. Pandra Boyle, 739 Church Avenue, Chula Vista, spokesperson for the area neighborhood stated they collectively oppose the proposal based on their disagreement with staff's interpretation of the State law with respect to size. She further stated that although Mr. Contreras has stated that he wants to rectify a pre-existing violation, she indicated that the violations were created by him after he bought the property. She, once again, urged the Commission to deny this proposal. The Commission requested that Mr. Contreras address the Commission once again in order to respond to Mrs. Boyles' statement that he did the illegal conversion. Mr. Contreras denied the allegations and stated that the violations were in existence when he bought the property. Public Hearing Closed 6:33 Commission Discussion: Chair O'Neill emphasized the need to expedite the enactment of a City Ordinance on Accessory Units, and stated that in the absence of one, although State law allows up to a 1,200 sf accessory unit, in his opinion, this proposal is too large, and, in fact, the secondary unit as proposed is larger than the primary unit. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Chair O'Neill's assessment of the project, and in his opinion the size of the project is incompatible with the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, he cannot make the necessary findings for approval. Commissioner Thomas stated that he cannot make the necessary findings for approval because he believes the project as proposed is too large and therefore incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Cortes stated that it is regrettable that there appears to be irreconcilable disputes with the neighbors and reminded the Commission that Mr. Contreras has been attempting, for some time now, to bring resolve to the pre-existing non-conformance Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - June 12, 2002 issues in order to be able to move forward with his proposal. He further stated that he bel ieves the proposal merits further consideration and approval. Commissioner O'Neill stated that he is willing to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt as it relates to the conversion being in existence when he bought the property. The reality is that the property is what it is today and the project as proposed is too large for the surrounding neighborhood. He further stated that it behooves the applicant to address the size issue and consider scaling back the project because he would not like to mislead the applicant into thinking that if the garage conversion issue is taken care of, his proposal, as currently designed, would be approved. MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission direct staff to come back with a resolution of denial of the project based on the Commission's inability to make the necessary findings for approval because the property has not been brought into conformance and the unit, as proposed, is characteristically incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and would have a detrimental affect on the General Plan and the quality of life within the Single Family neighborhood. Motion carried with Commissioner Cortes abstaining. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-34; Conditional Use Permit to install two 15-ft. monopines to support three antenna arrays, two microwave dishes and one GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear of the property, at 45 Quail Court. Background: Caroline Lewis, Planning Technician III, reported that Verizon Wireless proposes to install a wireless communications facility to include two 15 foot monopines and an equipment enclosure to be located behind a single-family home. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and east, and 1-805 borders the property to the west. Currently there are two Pacific BellICingular Wireless 8 foot poles with two antennas mounted to each pole that were approved in 1996. The monopines would be located 13 feet from the rear of the house and approximately 6 feet from the rear property line. A 6 x 18 foot equipment enclosure would be located 3 feet from the monopines and painted to match the existing house. Six written comments were received by neighborhood residents opposing the project because of the proximity to their homes and the perceived radio frequency emissions or radiation level from the antennas. Staff bel ieves that health and safety concerns are addressed by Condition #3, which requires all telecommunication facilities be in compliance with ANSI standards and EMF emissions, which is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - June 12, 2002 Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve CUP PCC 02-34 based on the findings and conditions contained herein to install two 15-ft. monopines to support three antenna arrays, two microwave dishes and one GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear of the property, at 45 Quail Court. Commission Discussion: Commissioner O'Neill stated that the Commission has reviewed a considerable number of these facilities in more appropriate locations such as on church properties, public facilities and schools and asked for clarification from staff as to their rationale in recommending approval of this proposal, which is clearly a commercial use in an R-1 zone. Jim Sandoval clarified that under current wireless regulations, these uses are allowed in single-family zones. The applicant proposed to install a stealth facility, therefore, staff considered it could be handled administratively, however, since there was opposition from the residents, it was deemed appropriate to refer it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Furthermore, because the location is at the end of a cul-de-sac, there are only two homes on each side and the closest thing to the facility would be 1-805. Public Hearing Opened 7:15. John Beke, representing Verizon Wireless, 357 Van Ness Way, Torrance, CA 905011 stated that this is not a commercial use in that they are a regulated public utility with the California Public Utilities Commission. He addressed the safety concerns of the surrounding neighbors and stated that the conditions contained in the resolution adequately protect all residents in that they are required to be in compliance with FCC regulations relating to EMF emissions. Public Hearing Closed 7:20. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the stealth qual ity of the product and the EMF issue are not points of concern to him, however, he cannot support a commercial use within an R- 1 single-family lone. Commissioner Hall stated that perception is reality in the minds of the public with respect to their concerns with EMF emissions. He further stated that from a public relations standpoint, he would like to see the telecommunication industry make an effort to educate the general public on the facts about EMF emissions. Commissioner Willett stated that he research the Zoning Code and found Section 19.22.030, which reads, "...satellite dish antennas shall be used for private non- commercial purposes...", therefore, he opposes the proposal because it is a commercial Planning Commission Minutes 5 - June 12, 2002 use, for profit, in a residential zone. Additionally, he also wholeheartedly recommends and educational outreach to the community regarding EMF emissions. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he cannot make the necessary findings to approve the project because it is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, he will be voting against the project. Commissioner O'Neill stated that it appears no effort was made by the applicant to attempt to find another location for their facility, most likely due to an assumption that because there already is an existing facility on that property, it would be a "slam-dunk" approval. Therefore, he is willing to recommend a continuance of this item in order to allow the applicant the ability to exhaust the possibility of locating their facility at another site. Commission Cortes stated he concurs with Chair O'Neill's statement and supports his recommendation for continuance. MSC (Thomas/Willett) (5-1-1-0) that the Planning Commission deny the application to install two 15-ft. monopines to support three antenna arrays, two microwave dishes and one GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear of the property, at 45 Quail Court. Motion carried with Commissioner O'Neill voting against it. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Sandoval reviewed the upcoming schedule of Planning Commission meetings and reminded the Commission that there will be a workshop on Wednesday, June 19 regarding the General Plan Visioneering Training and an update on the Redevelopment area amendment. ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission workshop of June 19,2002. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: C. Meeting Date: 07/24/02 ITEM TITLE: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS- 02-048, MAKING ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND DETERMINING ITS CONFORMITY TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND: The Southwest Redevelopment Plan was adopted on November 27, 1990 in order to improve deteriorated properties in the areas along Main Street, south Broadway, and south Third A venue (see map attached). Since its adoption, the Redevelopment Plan has pennitted the use of eminent domain authority to acquire property within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's eminent domain authority is restricted to an initial 12-year time period following the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan's eminent domain authority is scheduled to expire on November 27,2002. Redevelopment Law allows the City Council to extend this time limit for an additional 12 years by amending the Redevelopment Plan. Eminent domain can be an essential adjunct to property acquisition negotiations involving redevelopment of incompatible uses, inadequately sized lots, and dilapidated buildings. The Redevelopment Agency, in the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, proposes extending its eminent domain authority as referred to in the attached amendment in order to continue having all of the tools necessary to effectively address redevelopment of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Under City policy, the Planning Commission acts as an advisory body to the Agency on redevelopment matters relating to the Project Area. In addition, Redevelopment Law requires the Planning Commission to detennine whether the Redevelopment Plan confonns to the City's General Plan. The Planning Commission would act on both matters by adopting the attached resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its meeting of July 1,2002, the Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the Negative Declaration prepared for this action and recommended its adoption to the Redevelopment Agency/City Council. RECOMMENDA nON: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending adoption of Negative Declaration IS- 02-048, making its report and recommendation concerning the proposed Fourth Amendment. to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and determining its conformity to the City's General Plan. DISCUSSION: Attached is the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, which shows the language that need to be added to amend the plan. The added phrase appears underlined on the third paragraph of Section 503 (page 5) of the existing Plan. Said paragraph with the proposed amendment reads as follows: "Except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall be commenced after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting the Fourth Amendment to this Plan on September 17, 2002. Such time limitation may be extended only by amendment of this Redevelopment Plan." Although it has been sparingly used, the ability to acquire property through the use of eminent domain has been an effective tool to facilitate redevelopment of the Project Area. While the Agency does not have specific plans to use eminent domain to acquire property at this time, staff recommends preserving this authority in the event that it is necessary to complete future redevelopment projects. The proposed Fourth Amendment would extend the Agency's eminent domain authority by 12 years to 2014. As a part of the amendment process, the Agency is referring the proposal to the Planning Commission for their report and recommendation. The Planning Commission acts as an advisory body to the City Council and Agency on redevelopment matters. The attached resolution addresses two points to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. First, the Commission is being asked to make a report and recommendation on the amendment itself. For the reasons described in this report, the continued ability to use eminent domain, as a potential redevelopment tool, will be critical to the Agency.s redevelopment program in the Project Area, and staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the extension of this tool. Second, the Planning Commission is asked to affirm that the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the proposed Amendment, continues to conform to the City's General Plan. When the Plan was originally adopled in 1990, the Planning Commission found thaI the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the City's General Plan, because the Redevelopment Plan uses General Plan and other applicable state and local land use policies and slandards as land use controls within the Project Area. The proposed Amendment docs not alter the Redevelopment Plan's land use controls (which currently confornl to the City's General Plan, as it exists today or is hereafter ~ amended). Therefore the proposed Amendment is consistent, and the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Fourth Amendment remains consistent, with the City's General Plan. Though the Planning Commission's action does not require a public hearing, a joint City Council/Agency public hearing on the Amendment will be held on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. (or as soon as possible thereafter) in the Council Chambers. All Project Area residents, property owners, and business owners will be mailed notice of the public hearing, which will also be published for three consecutive weeks prior to the meeting. C \\.1y Filcs\Projccts'Plan Amendments & ExpansionlPlanning Commission Report Em Do doc [07/03/2002 4,<) P:>'1] 3 ~~ \ p-3/-~~ //~ \\;::=:-~, ~ ece ,,_~_~ ,,-,)x- ~~ \\ \~ ,,'S\- ,~''\ ,.." I~ :H\ -:: \ \ -;' (:::' I\:'\ L' I :l' ~ .., i~ ___ y\ ....A-- ,\-1" ./ \ Ci; , --1 I '-=\ ' I' " ~ ' ' 0~j,\\\\'~-C=\ S1'_ _ \JI..>--\' """,.J.~ - ~ \~d\ :' ,', ~ ~ \ ~ IIIII ~ 'C/ TT 'H ie,~ ~ 0.o:{ ;:J"-\; -;' ,--,,>Ii" If ;'IQ,i; IrI ~ ~ '" _~ ~,~ p'" tJifff', ~" I <~~\;5J lll- ~ c-: c\ I' . "TO C', .- ~ ___ ~ I 'T ~=J' l~rqJ ,\ (/'--;' , ,-;. L = , ~ ',j '-I ~ _Y'"C~n _~' \;J En t 1L ____ \ ' (-""1>' ' .-r-C ' A rT , ~ /,_' ' , II "C--- I I ~~~ ~~<~ '\ \~ ~ ':\ t- ~ ~li ll' i ,," :; ~ ~,~ \ '" ~ ,--<,"" ~y ~ !! _'- ~ 1\ \ \ \ \ ~:i ~6=~!? ___ ~' ,}J-- '1''' ' <;,,-<;;;d if' ....-s ~ \ \~ \ y\( UL-L- ~ !..--- :> ',I, ..:, ."C~ ~ ,~ ~ ..5\c~ _ I'. "",! R -'-'~9 l! \\- If.:\ \..~,.. L 'U '\-- : .----c - -- I ,"::::r\- ' ~ n \ ,-li~ I' ~ _" t., " " , .~, / v- < .' .--C" · 'v" _V::; 'e, '-!ill ' c-L ' ~ / >~ i" ~w '0#' , I rc /C L. ~7 _ _ ,', 7.Jt/"" I.""" - ~ L- }I Cl.l j~ I -t - \ L-/\ ~ - +- ~:U i11T ..... Z W ::;; Q. o ...J W > W I 0 , w I a::<( D .....~ Z: (1)<( . (1) W w'..... 3:..... <.9IWI1rl W..... Wi a::: :J"'" ~...... O~ (1) (1) Q. ; ~\ Ilb if i: ::f=J ~ ~~ - ~ -, o a:: Q. ..... Z <( W ..... :;;: <JJ Q. '> g :5 ill ::0 > I W 0 o "- ill 0 a:: ~ ..... - (J) 0 ill 3: I ..... ::J o (J) 4: ..... lE I X ill - ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ < c z w ~ ~,d .~~o .~..--.-f;;e w Co-"-"'-' a:: ~ ~ 5 S ~ I U RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15-02.048, MAKING ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND DETERMINING ITS CONFORMITY TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2420 on November 27, 1990, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 6, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2819; and, WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the Plan, the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. on November 13, 1990 finding that the Plan conformed to the City of Chula Vista General Plan ("General Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of ChuJa Vista ("Agency") has proposed a fourth amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project ("Amendment") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, the Amendment proposes to extend the time limit to commence eminent domain on Southwest Redevelopment Project Area properties; there has not been, and would not be as a result of this extension condemnation authority with respect to residential property in a residential zone; and, WHEREAS, eminent domain is a critical tool needed by the Agency to effectuate the redevelopment of blighted properties in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, eminent domain can be an essential adjunct to property acquisition negotiations involving redevelopment of incompatible uses, inadequately sized lots, and dilapidated buildings; and WHEREAS, Redevelopment Law allows the City Council to extend this time limit for an additional 12 years by amending the Redevelopment Plan. WHEREAS, Section 33346 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law") provides that before the proposed Amendment is submitted to the City Council for consideration, it shall first be submitted to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation concerning the Amendment and its conformity to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the Amendment; and, WHEREAS, Negative Declaration IS-02-048 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and Planning Commission received and reviewed said Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Amendment does not propose to alter the land use controls as set forth in Section 600 of the Plan which had previously been determined to be in conformance with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission hereby: 1. Finds that the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, as it may be amended by the proposed Fourth Amendment, conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan. 2. Recommends that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration IS-02-048 and the proposed Amendment. 3. Authorizes and directs the officers, employees, staff, consultants and attorneys for the Planning Commission to take any and all actions that may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this resolution or which are appropriate or desirable in the circumstances. In the event that prior to the adoption of the Amendment, the City Council desires to make any minor, technical, or clarifying changes to the Amendment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor, technical, or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for further report and recommendation. 4. This Resolution shall constitute the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Amendment to the City Council pursuant to Section 33346 of the Law. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION this 10'" day of July 2002 by the following vote to-wit. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Chairperson Secretary EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 7 EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT f FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Southwest Redevelopment Project adopted on November 27, 1990 by Ordinance No. 2420, as amended on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, November 6,1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2819 (the "Plan"), is hereby further amended as follows: Section 503 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: "1. (503) Acquisition of Real Property The Agency may acquire real property by any means authorized by law, including by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative negotiations, lease or any other means authorized by law including eminent domain. However, for the duration of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall not exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire any residential dwelling units, except with the consent of the owner, that are then being used for residential purposes, within land use designations or zoning classification areas designated for such residential purposes under the adopted Specific and General Plans of the City of Chula Vista, or as these documents may hereafter be amended by the City ofChula Vista. The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; or (2) the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or (3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standard restrictions and controls of the Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in the Plan by executing a participation agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall be commenced after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting the Fourth Amendment to this Plan on '),'1'1-'111\>,'1 17. 2002. Such time limitation may be extended only by amendment of this Redevelopment Plan." 9 ClMyFil~\Projects\Plan Amo:ndmo:n!5 & EXparI$ionlAmdment to Southwest PI;Jn do<: Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Southwest Redevelopment Plan Amendment To Extend Eminent Domain Authority PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest Redevelopment Project Area ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: V ARlOUS PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO.: IS-02-048 DATE: May 29, 2002 A. Project Setting Tbe amended Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (SWRPA) boundaries, found totally within the City of Chula Vista, are illustrated on the map att3ched hereto and incorporated as Exhibit A. B. Project Description Tbe project involves an amendment to the existing Amended Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Plan, dated November 1990. While the Redevelopment Plan itself does not expire until the year 2030, the power of eminent domain, which the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista may exercise (under the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law) is set to expire on November 26, 2002, unJess otherwise amended. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, with the approval of the City Council. proposes to amend that Plan by extending the provision of eminent domain to.November 27, 2014, as allowed by California Community Redevelopment Law. Although there are no current plans to acquire additional property through the use of eminent domain, the Agency has indicated that should either a commercial or residential project be undertaken in the future, that the extension of the time limit to exercise its eminent domain powers could be crucial to the success and completion of those projects, and hence, to its overall success in removing blight from the Project Area. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The proposed use is consistent with the underlying zone districts and General Plan designation. D. Comments On April 29, 2002 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to City and goverrunental staff. Seven Department staff members responded with no comments. !() OS/29102 _._-'-"-~'""~'_.--'-'~_. -'._--'-'--~'----~'-'-"--------"-'-- ~--- E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts NO MITIGATION REQUIRED G. Consultation I. City of Chula Vista: Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning Division Paul Hellman, Planning Division John Schmitz, Planning Division Jim Geering. Fire Marshall Frank Rivera. Engineering Department Joe Gamble, Landscape Architecture Division Bill Ullrich, Public Works/Operations Frank Herrera-A, Planning Division Miguel Z. Tapia, Community Development Benjamin Guerrero, Community Development 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19. Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997 Redevelopment Project Area Plans Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. i.i;]"~9; Date: b rJL Planning & Environmental Services Manager II OS/29/02 ( ~..Io ~ " ,~I~ 1 -~t~ -,_u 0 01'" 1; 5 ul8 -- <( w e::: <( .....\ ~\\ \ .' ~ \ ..., '--@7::lg1;; :..., ~ ~\'\\) F-J O ~z~ ;~\S"Sp O:;:)....J \. zou / e::: :=.-\\ <(U / /' 0.. ~\\ v> jJ ~' .....~ \\\ ) z __---..-\ ~\ .,rll\<\) " \ W~ \ ~\ \ o..~ 0\ ....J >\ w Q- w e::: -- [3J I t9 t- en w ~ :I: .....~ :::) o en I~ ~.... ~z >0 5B: =>:::( :1:", U ....z Case No.IS-02-048 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5291 4. Name of Proposal: Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan to extend Eminent Domain Authority 5. Date of Checklist: May 30, 2002 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or fannJands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to land use. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's furure acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the furure as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal. be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Pt>!nl1iaU1 SiptU"IOlI1 1m",,, Pot~Ii..all1 SlpllaaDt u..." MitipIN N. 1m",,, 1..=.... SifnirlODI 1m",,, o o o till o o o till o o o till o o o till The approval of this extension would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 13 1 5/30/02 FolentiaD] SIpifiaDl Impact P'otentbUJ S"rpir)(..:1lnt Unless MJliptrd ""'.... SIp.1Jian( 1m.." No Impact Mitigation: None II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Would the o o o r;?j b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? o o o r;?j c) Disp]ace existing housing, especially affordable housing? o o o r;?j Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to population and housing. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None 111. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people 10 potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 r;?j substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 r;?j overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 r;?j features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 r;?j unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 r;?j either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 r;?j or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the chalUlel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards 0 0 0 r;?j such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground ('I 5/30/02 2 PoctDllaUy S1pific:3DI imp''' Pocenl.laIly SOpiftODI UoI= Mmpted No Impact Less lb.. SignUkaDI imp''' failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to ground surface or geologic conditions. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes. conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None IV . WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Cbanges in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 0 !OJ 0 0 0 !OJ 0 0 0 !OJ o o o !OJ o o o !OJ o o o !OJ 0 0 0 !OJ 0 0 0 !OJ 0 0 0 t<I 0 0 0 !OJ Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to water resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result 3 1::;- 5/30/02 Po(eDti2ll, Potentiall, SIpilliuDt Less lhaa SignifICant UD.less SIplirKant No Impact Mlti~ted Impact Impact (Df the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further eenvironmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan. ZZoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City (Df Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from aany responsible public agency would also be required. JlMitigation: None \V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. either locally or regionally? d) Creaie objectionable odors? e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CCo=ents: lThe proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The e~xtension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the eenvironment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to Air Quality. Iindirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future "acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too sspeculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result cof the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further eenvironmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, aoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City cof Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws and with any approval from aany responsible public agency would also be required. J\Mitigalion: None WI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: . a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? l(c 4 o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5/30/02 PoIfndaUJ' PoIfnti.any Si~fiunl Less tbu Si!:'1utant UnI= Sipliliomt No Impact MStigatfd Impact Impact 0 0 0 ~ t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~ h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ~ Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city's transportation or circulation system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects. which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority. would, at the time of proposal. be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan. Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances. regulations and procedures of the City ofChula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None VlI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would Ihe proposal resull in impacls 10: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 ~ or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)? 0 0 0 ~ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak 0 0 0 ~ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh. riparian and vernal 0 0 0 ~ poo!)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~ f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 0 efforts? Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore. the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to biological resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too specu1ative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City.s General Plan, 5 (7 5/30/02 PoccnluDI Pot~tuDI S-"piJk~U!;1 Less thiul SiI:JI1ficut UDkss SiplilioDI No Impact Mitlcated Impact Imp:tct Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mjtigation: None VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will this project impact this protection? o o o o o o o o o o o o Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency.s existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to energy or mineral resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency.s future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions. ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. J\.Utigation: None IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard In areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any creation or exposure of humans or 6 / r 5/30/02 PottllllaDy PoCtDliaD, SipillkaDI l..cs.J thaD Si;nif"1C.aD1 Uukss SipmCaDl No Imp3ct MilipttiJ Impact Impact animal species to hazardous situations. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. M.itigation: None x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o o o iii o o o iii Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant noise impacts. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal. be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. J'>litigation: None XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 iii b) Police protection? 0 0 0 iii c) Schools? 0 0 0 iii d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 iii e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 iii Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to public services. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further 7 /9 5/30/02 POlt:JItiaDy PoteDtUUy SipUfx:allt Uss lhan SipliIk;Jllt UnksJ SipaiIk;Jllt No Impact Miti1:;Jt~ Impact Impact environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. No new or altered governmental services will be required for this project. Mitigation: None XTI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not significantly impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. o o o I'J a) Fire/EMS o o o I'J The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to fire rescue or emergency medical services. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances. regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None b) Police o o o I'J The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to police services. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances and regulations and procedures of the C20 8 5/30/02 PottntLaUy PottDlblly SipLmC:U::.t Us1 thn Sipifit.:lul Uuless Sitnifit::lnl No Impact fl.Uligattd Impact Impact City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None c) Traffic o o o o Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city's traffic system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None d) Parks/Recreation o o o o Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to parks or recreational resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances and regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. !'vlitigation: None e) Drainage o o o o The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to city's drainage 9 C)-( 5/30/02 PoIUlIi.2U1 Pot~IIIi:ill1 SitJllf"K..allt Less thall Sif:D.ifk:ant UDku SipiflC::lRI No Impact Miti~alt"d impact Imp:>ct system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power. would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. M.itigation: None f) Sewer o o o o The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city.s sewer resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the exlension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan. Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. No sewer facilities or services are required to serve this project. Therefore. no conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated. !\1itigation: None g) Water o o o o The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to water resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City.s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances and regulations and procedures of the 10 ~:2..- 5/30/02 PoltnliaUy PotUltWJ1 Sipillicapt Us! than Sitnir.C~UII UnltsS Si~Dmcallt No Im~ct It{jlit:Jl~ Impact Impact City of Chula Vista. Compliance with a1l applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. No water service is required for this project. Therefore, no conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated. Mitigation: None XIlI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 CO! b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 CO! c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 CO! facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 CO! e) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 CO! f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 CO! Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing e'minent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project wi1l not result in any significant impacts to utility and service systems. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power. would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan. Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances. regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. The proposed project would not require new systems to be installed, or alterations of existing utilities. Mitigation: None XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route? o o o CO! o o o CO! c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? o o o CO! d) Create added light or glare sources that could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? o o o CO! 11 c:<3 5/30/02 e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? PocrntiaU, Sipilknt IID~ct POCtntiall, $iplirlOnt Unless Miligattd No Impact Less th..n Significant lmp:act o o o ~ Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the envirorunent; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to aesthetic resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power. would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further envirorunental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. l\Utigation: None XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? o o o ~ o o o ~ o o o ~ o o o o o o o o Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the envirorunent; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to cultural resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power. would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None ;2 V 12 5/30/02 XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Pot",tiaUy PoInltiaU, SipiflOnl Less tbu SIgninODI Unless Sil:"iIk~u.t No hnpad Miti~tw hnpact Impact 0 0 0 0 Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City.s General Plan. Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None XVII. RECREATION. Would (he proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 0 0 parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 0 or programs? Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts.to recreational resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances. regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declara/ion for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining 13c2S-- o o o 5/30/02 potenlia1l1 Si~ifk"nt lrop3ct Pott"nti:lU, Sie:nilkut Unless Milipt~ Less thaD SitJIiftcant Impact N. Impact levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The extension of existing eminent domain power will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to sensitive plant or animal communities. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City ofChula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approvalfiom any responsible public agency would also be required. Mitigation: None b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? o o o o Comments: Extending the existing eminent domain authority of the city would not significantly affect the long-term environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o o o o Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing power of eminent domain. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required. 14 c:2~ 5/30/02 PQttl11bDl Si&DiticaDt imp''' PotmlbUJ 5i&nifIUDI U."" MJtit;lltd '-= .... Significant Impact N. Impact Mitigation: None d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o o 1:;1 Comments: No substantial significant effects on human beings would result from extending the ~ity's existing eminent domain authority. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION 1'rIEASURES: NONE REQUIRED xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES NO MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED XXI. ENVlRON1YIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: NONE CHECKED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 T ransporta tion! C ircula t ion 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Paleontology 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 15 cJ-1 5/30/02 XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, · and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0 least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 0 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. J)40~~ Signature Date May 29, 2002 Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Services Manager City of Chula Vista cJg 16 5/30/02 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 07/24/2002 <? ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of a Conditional Use Pennit, PCC-02-50, for Nextel Communications to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at 525-549 Hunte Parkway-Auld Golf Course. Nextel Communications is requesting permission to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at 525-549 Hunte Parkway, at the Auld Golf Course. The project will consist of a one 63 foot monopine and three sectors each with five antennas, for a total of up to fifteen antennas and an II foot 6 in by 20 foot equipment shelter that would be 12 foot 3 inches high. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 5 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15305, minor conditional use pennit that does not significantly intensify land use). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed cellular communications facility. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The project site is located at the Auld Golf Course at 525-549 Hunte Parkway. The 41 acre parcel is zoned as Agricultural 8- Open Space. The Auld Golf Course is located where Hunte Parkway intersects with Olympic Parkway in the Eastern portion of Chula Vista. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The project is located in the Agriculture (A-8) Zone, and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Open Space. The following table specifies the types of land uses surrounding the project site: General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Open Space A-8 Auld Golf Course North: Open Space OS Open Space South: Residential/LM PClRI Rolling Hills Ranch East: Residential/Low PC/RI Proposed Residential West: ResidentiallLM PC/RI Residential The purpose of the Agricultural Zone is to provide a zone with appropriate uses for areas rural in I Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 07-24-2002 character, which are undeveloped and not yet ready for urbanization. Cellular facilities are considered an unclassified use in this zone and require a conditional use permit. 3. Proposal Nextel Communications proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the Auld Golf Course located at 525-549 Hunte Parkway. The proposed facility would consist of one 63 foot monopine and one II. -6 by 20' -0", 12 foot 3 inch high equipment shelter. To keep conformity with the existing landscape, two live, 25 foot tall, pine trees will be planted adjacent to the proposed monopme. The antennas are proposed to be placed on the 63 foot monopine. The antenna height would be approximately 55 feet, measured from ground level to the center of the antennas. Three sectors of antennas are proposed each with a maximum of five antennas, for a total of up to fifteen antennas. The proposed antennas would be integrated to minimize visual impacts. The proposed equipment shelter would be built on a concrete slab and would have corrugated metal siding. It will reflect the architectural features (including color and design) and landscaping of the existing maintenance building. ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 19.48 (Unclassified Uses) and Section 19.20.040 (G), Conditional Use Permits are required for uses listed in this section ofthe Zoning Code, and shall be considered by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. Due to the increase in public demand for cellular use and coverage, several cell sites have been located within Chula Vista. Nextel is proposing a cell site at the Auld Golf Course to enhance cellular service. The proposed cellular site will allow Nextel to maintain signal coverage within the southern portion of the region. The proposed site is zoned Agricultural (8) and is not immediately surrounded by residences. There are very few, if any other, large non-residential parcels that will satisfy the coverage objective for this specific area. The proposed heights of the monopine and the two live pine trees appear to be reasonable for the proposed location and zone. The two live pines and other live trees on the site should grow over time to a comparable scale. Further, per Section 19.16.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the proposed cellular site is not subject to the height limitations of the Agriculture (8) Zone. The proposed use appears to meet the findings necessary to grant Conditional Use Permit, PCC-02- 50. I. The proposed use is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility, which will ..{ Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 07-24-2002 contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed project is desirable as it will increase public convenience by providing essential communication service in the area. The proposed use will be constructed to match the existing landscape in form and character. The proposed use will not interfere with any existing activities or conveniences of the general public and will contribute to the general well being of the community by ensuring uninterrupted cellular service in the Southbay area. 2. The use 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. Accessibility to clear and reliable communications, which can continue to function in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, may help to enhance the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens ofChula Vista. The proposed monopine and equipment shelter will not create a negative visual impact as it is well removed from any residential uses and will conform to the existing environment and landscape. 3. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use must comply with the conditions ofthe Conditional Use Permit, PCC-02- 50 as recommended by Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. All necessary permits from the City to install, operate, and maintain the facility will be obtained. 4. The granting ofthis conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city. According to the Eastern Territories Area Plan Section of the General Plan, most development will take place in the Eastern portion of the City. It is Goal #2 of said Area Plan to accommodate and regulate such development. The proposed ccllular facility will help accommodate the communication needs of such high urban development throughout the Southbay, as well as the Eastern portion of the City. It is a passive use and therefore will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan. CONCLUSION: The proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on-site at the Auld Golf Course. The proposed telecommunications facility will conform to all the development standards of the Agricultural (8) Zone as well as the policies and goals identified in the City Of Chula Vista General Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends approval based upon the findings and conditions of the attached resolution. 3 Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 07-24-2002 ]. Locator Map 2. Conditional Use Pennit Application 3. Resolution J :\Plann ing\L ynnettc\administrative rcview\PCC-02- 50 report. doc '-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-02-S0, AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE AULD GOFF GOLF COURSE, 525-549 Hunte Parkway. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit was filed with the City Of Chula Vista Planning Division on February 19,2002; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests a conditional use pennit for an unmanned cellular communications facility at the Auld Golf Course; and WHEREAS, the project site in Agricultural (8) Zone, and requires a conditional use pennit for cellular facilities; and WHEREAS, cellular facilities are considered unclassified uses that may be pennitted anywhere in the City per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48; and WHEREAS, the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on the site and will conform to the development standards of the Agricultural Zone; and WHEREAS, the proposed project will be desirable and necessary as a public convenience by providing cellular communication accessibility in Chula Vista. WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 5 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15305, minor conditional use pennit that does not significantly intensify land use); and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and V,'HEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 10,2002 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the P1anning Commission; 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 Conditional Use Permit s- PCC 02-50 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached 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 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of July, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kevin O'Neill, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary <.. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION: OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC- 02-50, FOR AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE AULD GOFF GOLF COURSE, 525-549 HUNTE PARKWAY. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as the Auld Goff Golf Course, which is the subject matter of this resolution, and is represented in Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated herein; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 40.53 acres with a Land Use Designation of Agricultural (8); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit (PCC-02-50) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by DCI Pacific on behalf of the applicant Nextel Communications. C. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 5 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15305, minor conditional use permit that does not significantly intensify land use); and D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the said project on July 24, 2002 and voted X-X-X-X to recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use pem1it based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-50; and E. City Council Record on Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on August 13, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 7 Resolution No. Page 2 II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on July 24, 2002 and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICA TION 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. IV. CONDITIONAL USE 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 conditional use permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. I. 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 proposed project is desirable, as it will increase public convenience by providing essential communication service in the area. The proposed use will be constructed to match the existing landscape in form and character. The proposed use will not interfere with any existing activities or conveniences of the general public and will contribute to the general well being of the community by ensuring uninterrupted cellular service in the Southbay area. 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 . Accessibility to clear and reliable communications, which can continue to function in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, may help to enhance the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Chuta Vista. The proposed monopine and equipment shelter will not create a negative visual impact as it is well removed from any residential uses and will conform to the existing environment and landscape. ~ Resolution No. Page 3 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use must comply with the conditions of the Conditional Use Pennit, PCC- 02-50 as recommended by Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. All necessary permits from the City to install, operate, and maintain the facility will be obtained 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. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city. According to the Eastern Territories Area Plan Section of the General Plan, most development will take place in the Eastern portion of the City. It is Goal #2 of said Area Plan to accommodate and regulate such development. The proposed cellular facility will help accommodate the communication needs of such high urban development throughout the Southbay, as well as the Eastern portion of the City. It is a passive use and therefore will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan. v. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-50, subject to the following conditions. Planning and Building Department: 1. Construct the Project as shown or described in the application, elevations, photo simulations and other exhibits submitted for review at the City Council public hearing dated August 13,2002. 2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in co-locating additional antennas on subject property provided said co-locatees have received a conditional use permit for such use at said site from the City. Pcrmittee shall exercise good faith in co- locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality-of-service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at the expense of either or both the permittee and applicant. 4. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) month of the Building Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a project "'T Resolution No. Page 4 implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building, which provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI standards. If on review the City in its discretion finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit. 5. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion, finds that the project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. 6. Obtain building permits from the Chula Vista Building Division. The project must comply with all applicable building codes including the 1998 CBC and CEC; also structural calculations will be required. 7. 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 C.V.M.C. regarding graffiti control. 8. If applicable, the power source for the proposed project shall be independent of existing site facilities. Electrical service connections and the locations of related components such as meters and transformers shall be coordinated with SDG&E and City of Chula Vista Electrician (Terry Strauwald, 619-691-5020) prior to issuance of building permit. The proposed facility may not use said power source prior to final approval. Disruption of cxisting site improvements and facilities, including site landscaping improvements, resulting from the installation of said electrical services shall be replaced/repaired in kind subject to the appropriate City approval(s). 9. The monopine and two live pines should be staggered and of varying heights to provide for a naturalistic setting. 10. The equipment shelter is to reflect the architectural features (including color and design) of the existing maintenance building. I I. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 12. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the 1(5) Rcsolution No. Page 5 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/conditon, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 13. 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. 14. This permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval by the Planning Commission. After five (5) years, the Applicant may request an extension of this conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review this conditional use permit for compliance with the conditions of approval and shall determine, in consultation with the applicant, whether the project needs to be modified from its original approval as part of the extension approval. VI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL Execute this document by making a true copy of this Resolution and signing this original Resolution on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be filed with the City Clerks office and a copy of the true copy shall be available from the Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative Date 'I Resolution No. Page 6 VII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building pennits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this Resolution, VIII. 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 tenn, 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. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2002. Presented by: Approved as to form by: John M. Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning & Building J: \PLANNIN(;\L YNNETTE\AD1\IINISTRA TIVE REVIEW\CC-RESO- PCC-02-S0.noc IJ- ."_._~-".,.'_."---~ PROJECT ICATION I I AULD GOFF 1 GOLF COURSE I .. .. ..! /~, d~rf~ I~jrii ;-'" \ fi:\ }I \~ \ /'- , \ 1- r '/.. ""~ r \ \ ) t t / / .....) I _ _~ \ \ DUN 4.X{' / /~,{ (~'~~J \ \ ~~\M:~?\ \ . I ?i. \ G/;:"\ 7 EJ1 ,,?p, / ~ i II=e('1/ .\- ).,,1 \ J\:li$\ ( .d \ \ \ .... \.\ ) / -, \ .,)>\ \;(~i .... -'-.:r\?:::\ ...... \;>'\~, \\(... ()\(.:\\~\\I(~;> " \ .~>/ /<"~_ .-'."i \ \ '\....) ,.,/ I. '.:'/ / \ \ \ \ \ - . ...u > \ \f...~./"r ~.cltj \ \ ! \ (,\ ~~ C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: NEXTEL OF O'\LIFORNIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT ADDRESS: 525-549 HUNTE PARKWAY Request: Proposal for the installation and operation of 1 mono pine and equipment shelter. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCC-02-50 j :\home\plann ing\cherrylc\locators\pcc0250. cd r 03.07.02 1.3 Uevelopment Processing Application Form - Type A Page One CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning & Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue (619)691-5101 TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED rJi CondItIonal Use Permit g Variance o DesIgn RevIew o ~1aI Land use Permit .. ;]'1...Jopment Area Only) c)''I1r 1J....uus: (staff use onlY). Case No.: U:. ():J. -.PJ Filing Date: zl Ie; 102. By: 131..- Assigned Planner: VtlV! tit ~ e'f! Receipt No.: oi - Ot5"1' I ~ Project Acct: 13/;-100 Depos~ Acct: bQ - 'iSJ,!J Related Cases: \ ~ 02 -I) H o ZA ~PubllC Hearing APPLICANT INFORMATION Name OF cA\..l~tJIA Address ~I/I? SlAIn< 100 Interest In Property rill.ease 0 In Escrow e,. Address & AlfWfrI/ Av~1l€: ~ t-AfSA CA q~(p.;2 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types) ~ C)Qi1In 'A }.\~ Cot-At-"IANlc}:nONS SAN 1)IE"60\ CJr. tj;).. 1\ \ If applicant is not owner. owne~s authorization o Option to purchase is required to process request. See signature on Page Two. Ph ne o. 14 PIqect Name fA-C.1L. - rA 4fqoA J.A1e,ua ~c.H Genera Description of Proposed Project ~<UIIe Appendix A to provide a full description and justification for the project] / ) ..~ ~~ OF ON€{I) I/MotJOfilJ~\\ ~NA ~~ iff (g;' It-! H:rolfr) AND ONt' U \,'-t..- '" ~.(/-o\\ ~l.\If'~~. ~ t-WNOfIN~ \,.,111,(, \'I1\W A MA'tllJ\lAM Cf ~(b) ~OFArm;NJ~, ~~~ ~\J\NG, !<-fv1MIMlAt'lcF f'1\.€(S) ~Nr\S. attende aPe-Application Conference to discuss this project? the date? () Pre-App No.: '" V I!>I~ Proposed Use ~S1aeC,fJ""M\AtJlc.k11(X\/~ fPtC-\L. SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION g VI t1 Is this in Montgomery S.P.? n 11/99 ~(ft- ~ cnv OF OfULA VISTA CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning & Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue (619)691-5101 LJevelopment PrOcessing Application Form Page Two (staff U_S<'LQIlly) Case No.: I PROPOSED PROJECT (all types) , Type of Use Proposed o Residential ~Comm, Olnd, o Other Landscape Coverage ('Yo of lot) Building Coverage ('Yo of lot) I Type of Dwelling Unit(s) ._JNumber of Lots Proposed Existing IBR____ 2BR 3+BR Total ,IVlaXImUm Building HelgnT IVlinlmum Lot Size RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY tJ fA . I No, of Dwelling Units -- uenslTY luus/acre) I Average Lot Size ---_.~ Parkina Sooces Total Off-street Type of Parking (size; whether covered) Required by Code: Provided: Open Space Description (Acres each of private, common, and landscaping) Loss ~Ioor Area rsf) pro~~:-RESIDENTI~~n:ROJECT SUM:~~~elght I ^PP~'{.. J.1o ?a. ft. ~~') Amo'i.ljo.53 ftC, (p'3,' MONOPINf"Atm:NNA-~DtVIfZ,," Hours of Operation [Days & Hours) ~4- ~S) 1 ~s f"€t.- Wffi!... Anti9.ipoted Total # Employees I'Vlax, 1/' or tmployees aT anyone Time tJfA - t)tJ~:>I~ IN\~ ~. ~L-fT'/ ON~ ~"\c.e: ~N\qMJ,.APMJI. 4-10 w~s Parkin9 Spaces Required Space, ~ovided Type of parking (size) oN~LI) fOt ~ODIC. ""MN[a.I~ 9Jtll) S~> 1/' tJ.o ~TUaenTs/\.-nIIuren (If applicablel I"\g;; /tr STUOenrS/cnllOren (if applicable) ~e~J% \.-apaclTY J.leItU CofJ\tv\lAN1cA110/'olS Print Applicant or Agent Name 0T'fr:'( W1m=e.DI~lvr Print Owner Name 0)./ II /0;).. Date' I Applic or A ent Signature CM1r/ LJM , ~tJ~ NICHI1QtJS ~ ~ ~ ~c.f J\'.tnt~rlkl\~ Owner Slgnature* Date (Required if Applicant is not Owner) * Letter of ONner consent may be used in lieu of signature. FORM A-PAGE 2 OF 2 IrS 11/99 Appendix A PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NAME: _~ W~~\-I1"/ - tA 74/00 A tv1le.ua.~ APPLICANT NAME: ~~ COMMlItJlCA'!lON> 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. Descriction & Justification. 1~~~ f~Qjfl::f p~t'1icN Ar-JD fiNDH,J6S, I~ Appendix B THE CI, , OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ST"" EMENT You are required 10 file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1, List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. ~ (fr C/t\Afo~I~. I\t.. .12OO~~lcr 1W fIIA\-P tEM~% 2, If any person' idenlified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. CAnt'{ \'IVl, ~ I'Mf'\..O'/t%' _L/I1IDIG. SW~) 1-1~ et:.JSA~ J2,~_JN;..tf1c...1 ~ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed 7' than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No If yes, state which Councilmember( s): (NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) Date: O:;/n /o:?- , Signa ~ {,1rJ! ~ N~ CPI4!o\~II1C1malS Print or type name of contractor/applicant 11 * Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization. corporation. estale, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, " APPENDIX C (I of3) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT Permit Applicant: Applicant's Address: Type of Permit: Agreement Date: Deposit Amount: --{~ ~f ~\~I~N(,. \ 1>/~ \I~ UJI'\MLtNICArlfNS 'J) U:N ~IW, ~ 00, "P CIt '\;1\\\ ,.AUJoe ~p I rfu\altr I/MiAfltt :J~ro. ~ This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the fOllowing facts: Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay." 1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty. As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty". 2. City's Duty. City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application. 2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City. 1'6 APPENDIX C (20f3) 2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services. or the execution of the Agreement. 3. Remedies. 3.1. Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City. 3.2. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same. the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this . Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. 4.2 Governing LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 4.3. Multiple Signatories. If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set forth. 4.4. Signatory Authority. This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represenls that he is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant. 19 APPENDIX C (30f3) 4.5 Hold Harmless. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights, except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. 4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA By: Dated: By: .;to Nextel Communications 5761 Copley Drive, Suile 100, San Diego, CA 92111 858-650-4200 FAX 858-650-4202 NEXrEl Project Description and Conditional Use Permit Findings Nextel Site #CA 7460A Miguel Ranch. The Auld Golf Course. 525-549 Hunte Parkway. Chula Vista, CA 91915 APN: 595-040-08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nextel Communications. Inc.. d/b/a Nextel Communications, has been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) to construct and operate the first dual purpose digital mobile radio system in the Unites States. Nextel's Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) system provides four functions in one hand-held mobile telephone unit paging, direct- connect two-way radio communication, internet connection, and regular wireless mobile service. The proposed facility consists of one (I) antenna structure designed to resemble a pine tree ("monopine"), and an adjacent equipment shelter to house radio equipment. The mono pine will measure sixty-three feet (63') in height, and will contain three (3) sectors of antennas. Each antenna sector will contain a maximum of five (5) antennas, for a total of up to fifteen (15) antennas. The equipment shelter measures I I' -6" by 20' -0", and will be placed adjacent to the monopine. To mitigate any potential visual impacts, Nextel will plant two (2) live pine trees adjacent to the proposed monopine. 3. The proposed use at the particular 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: Mobile telephones are becoming more and more prevalent in society, with a new subscriber being added about every 42 seconds. Over]] 7,000 calls to 91 I are made daily by mobile phone users across the United States. This consumer demand drives the wireless carriers' need to place new cell sites across the nation. The nature ofNextel's unique direct connect feature makes it the most efficient method of secured communications for organizations working to protect the public safety. There have been a number of newsworthy events that involved the Nextel communications system: . During the 1994 Northridge earthquake disaster Nextel was the provider of communications services for the earthquake relief provided by the Red Cross. In the aftermath of the Seattle earthquake in 200 I, landlines were overloaded by the volume of calls. The F.A.A. used their Nextel phones and were provided with additional phones to use in their assessment of damage and for use in the organization. s temporary air traffic control mobile unit. ~( NEXTEl . Closer to home, during the unfortunate school shooting in Santee, Nextel's nearby cell site (abutting residential property) provided communications for police and city personnel when the regular telephone services were overloaded by the sudden high volume of calls. . During the Viejas fire, the conventional communication systems in Lawson Valley did not function for days during the reconstruction of the infrastructure that was destroyed by the fire. This left the area without the ability for the public to make 911 notifications unless cell phones were used. . In June, 2001, Nextel placed a temporary cell site at the San Diego Convention Center. The temporary site was placed to provide the hundreds of California Highway Patrol officers as well as officers from the San Diego Police Department with secured communications through their Nextel phones while they provided for the public safety during the Bio 200 I conference. . And most recently. in the aftermath of the September II tragedy, the thousands of Nextel mobile phones that were used by public safety first-response teams and support personnel would have been of no use had there not been an existing communications cell site network in place in the New York area. The location of the project will be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because it will enhance the coverage and capacity ofNextel's wireless network in the immediate area. This location has been coordinated with the property owner, so that this unstaffed wireless telecommunications facility will not impact the functionality. use, and aesthetics of the property. b. The proposed use will not, under tile circumstances of tile particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in tile vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in tile vicinity: The installation of antennas and transmission equipment will not be detrimental to the health. safety or general welfare of persons in the vicinity, as the facility will operate in full compliance with all local, state and federal regulations including the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The facility will not result in any material changes to the character of the local community, as the antenna structure will resemble a pine tree and two live pine trees will be planted. In addition, the existing trees in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility will serve to screen the equipment. c. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in tllis code for such use: The proposed facility will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the city code for the proposed use, with the exception of the height of the monopine. Nextel is ~ 2 Nextel Communications 5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92111 858-650,4200 FAX 858,650,4202 NEXrEl requesting to exceed the thirty-five feet (35') height limit due to technical requirements. Attached are two (2) coverage maps, one showing coverage with antennas at thirty feet (30') high (which would comply with the height limit), and the other showing coverage with antennas at the proposed fifty-five feet (55') high. As the coverage maps depict. there is a significant increase in coverage with antennas at 55', More specifically, coverage extends into the commercial/industrial park located southwest of the proposed facility, as well as to neighboring residential areas. Antennas at 30' would provide coverage to the golf course, but only spotty in-car coverage to the commercial/industrial park. The facility will also comply with all state and federal requirements for wireless facilities. d. The granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency: The proposed use will not have an adverse affect on the general plan or adjacent properties, as the adjacent and abutting properties will have a limited view of the facility, The facility will be located within the existing Auld Golf Course, tucked within existing trees. The surrounding uses are open space and high-tension wires to the North, a water reservoir and open space to the East, residential to the South, and open space to the West Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan or other land use plans, the location of wireless telecommunications facilities are based on technical requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with neighboring sites and customer demand components, Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Accordingly, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc, proving to be compatible in all locations, The proposed facility at the subject location will be unstaffed, have no impact on circulation systems, and generate no noise, odor, smoke, or any other adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. ~~ 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT 'v./.- #c:r MeetingDa~:~md6~ 7/2'-1/D2. ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-42, proposal for a detached, 926 square foot garage with a 920 second accessory dwelling unit above in a Single-Family Residence (R-I) zone. The project would be situated behind an existing single-family dwelling located at 250 K Street. The second-story unit is in compliance with state government code regulations 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-{I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. The property owner proposes to build a garage with an accessory second dwelling unit above. The accessory second dwelling is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the state government code. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a) new construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC - 02-42, based on the findings and conditions contained therein for a combined garage/accessory second dwelling unit, per state Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)-{I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The property is 7,500 square-feet in size, essentially flat and contains an existing single-family dwel1ing. The uses adjacent to the property include single-family homes to the east and west, apartments to the south and K Street is to the north. The proposed location of the project is behind the existing single-family dwelling. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use Site: North: South: East: West: General Plan Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential. Low-Medium Zoning R-I R-l R-3-G R-l R-I Current Land Use Single-family residential Single-family residential Multi-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential / Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 06/26/02 3. Proposal The project proposal is a two-story structure, which is composed of a 926 square-foot, three-car garage and a 920 square-foot accessory second unit above the garage, which will be occupied by the applicant's family members. The second unit includes two bedrooms, a living area, kitchen, and full bath. The garage will have a halfbath. The garage/accessory second unit would be located behind an existing primary single-family dwelling. Accessory second units are typically located at ground level. In this case, the placement of the accessory unit above the garage is unique. However. the second story placement would not create a significant intrusion into the adjacent properties based on the following site investigation: . Immediately south is a multi-car carport for the existing apartment complex; . The property immediately west has a rear yard with sufficient trees that would provide adequate screening; and . The property immediately east contains a two-story single-family dwelling. The application for the proposed accessory second unit is subject to state guidelines. State law provides guidelines that enable cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances, to process these applications. The guidelines allow cities to require a conditional use pennit in each case. State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)-(I) is explained below: (b) (1) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July 1, 1983 or within 120 days after receiving its first application, the local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use pennit for the creation of an accessory second unit if the unit complies with all ofthe following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The accessory second unit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot. (E) The increased floor area of the attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area of the detached unit does not exceed 1,200-sq. ft. (G) Requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone. (H) Local building code requirements to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by local health officer is required if a private sewage disposal system is utilized. ANALYSIS: The proposed accessory second unit has been designed and sited to meet the state criteria and local zoning ordinance, as outlined below: (A) The accessory second unit cannot be sold or rented. ...2. Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 06/26/02 (B) The accessory second unit is in a R-I (One-Family Residence) Zone. (C) The lot contains a single-family dwelling. (D) The accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot of an existing primary single- family dwelling. (E) The accessory second unit will be detached from the primary dwelling. (F) The accessory second unit is less than 1,000 square feet (1,200 square feet is the maximum allowed by State law). (G) The proposed detached accessory second dwelling unit will comply with all of the required R-I development standards, as outlined in the table below: DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Height Lot Coverage Setbacks: Front Rear Sides Parking Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ALLOWEDIREQUlRED 28 feet (2.5 stories) 50% PROPOSED 23 feet (unit above garage) 21% IS feet 20 feet 5 feet each side 2 spaces 45% 30 feet 20 feet 5 feet each side 3 spaces 44.4% (H) Fees, and other charges shall be paid in association with the required building permit, to be applied for and reviewed in conformance with local building codes upon approval ofthis Conditional Use Permit; (1) Sewer service will be provided by the City ofChula Vista (not a private system). There is no requirement for local health official approval. The accessory second unit is an appropriate use for the 7,500 square-foot lot, which is located in an R -I zoning distri ct. The project, as described, satisfies State legislation for accessory second units and meets the City Of Chula Vista's requirements for the findings to approve a Conditional Use Permit. The project provides needed affordable housing and is consistent with the General Plan's Housing Element. Furthermore, the proj ect will not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the combined garage/accessory second unit behind the existing single-family residence at 250 K Street, in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-42. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Resolution PCC-02-42 3. Application Malenals JWlanninglMlCHAELIPCC REPORTS\PCC-02-42 .3 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-42 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-02-42, A GARAGE "'1TH AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT ABOVE, LOCATED BEffiND AN EXISTING PRIMARY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 250 K STREET, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(1)(A)--{I). WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use pennit was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 31,2002 by Denny K. Kremer; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to build a garage with an accessory second unit above located at 250 K Street. The accessory unit includes a living area, kitchen and full bath in compliance with the provision found in the State Government Code, in order to provide additional housing for family members; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location oflimited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 26, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the conditional' use pennit application, the Planning Commission . voted to approve the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's ru]es and regu]ations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that pennits the stated finding to be made. 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The project, as described, consists of a garage with an accessory second unit above for use by senior family members. The requested use would take place within an existing single-family residential neighborhood. State legislation declares that accessory second units are a valuable fonn of housing in California, providing housing for fami]y members, students, the e]derly, in-home hea]th providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. ~<f- Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and region-wide problem of providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and does not adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicini!)' or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. The architecture and site planning are consistent with single-family character of the surrounding residences. In addition, the accessory second unit will be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The conditional approval of PCC-02-42 requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit for or occupancy of any new building on the property. The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the California Government Code relating to detached accessory second units as follows: (A) The accessory second unit is not intended for sale or rent. (B) The lot is zoned for single- family or multi-family use. (C) The accessory second unit will be constructed in conjunction with a pnmary single-family residence on the lot. (D) The accessory second unit is detached and will be located on the same lot as a single-family residence. (E) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed 1,200-sq. ft. (F) The accessory second unit meets local requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone. (G) The accessory second unit prDject meets local building code requirements for detached dwellings, as appropriate. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan ofthe City or the adopted plan of any government agency. This Conditional Use Permit is in compliance with the General Plan, because Section 65852.2b.5 of the California Government Code provides that accessory second unit permits issued are exempt from the existing or future General Plan and zoning density regulations. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-42 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant and/or property owner(s): :) ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. The property owner shaH pay the appropriate sewer capacity and traffic signal fees for the proj ect. 2. If grading is required, the property owner shaH provide grading plans to the Engineering Department for review and approval. If necessary, the property owner shaH obtain a grading pennit as part of the building pennit process. 3. A separate sewer lateral shaH be required for the new dwelling. PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4. The accessory second unit shaH be constructed and maintained in accordance with the conceptual plans received May 13, 2002, including a site plan, floor plan, and exterior elevations. 5. A soils report shaH be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building pennit. 6. Obtain a building pennit in compliance with 1998 Califomia Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Code, and National Electrical Code 7. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall be submitted in confonnance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the accessory second unit wiH be architecturaHy compatible with and/or match the primary single-family residential unit. Said plans shaH be kept on file in the Planning Division, in compliance with the conditions contained herein and Title 19 of the CYMC, subject to the approval of the Planning and Building Director. STANDARD C01\1DITIONS 8. The conditions of approval for this p~nnit shaH be applied to the subject property until such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked, and the existence of this use pennit with approved conditions shaH be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to the issuance of the building pennits for the proposed unit, the applicant/property owner shaH provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document. 9. This pennit shaH be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Pennittee and after the City has given to the Pennittee 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 Pennittee of a substantial revenue source which the Pennittee cannot, in the nonnal operation of the use pennitted, be expected to economically recover. 10. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year fTom the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shaH cause this pennit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. . (p 11. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified conditional use pennit. 12. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnif'y, protect, defend and hold hannless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Pennit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other pennit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility pennitted hereby, including, without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Pennit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 13. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building pennits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative Date NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby' approve Conditional Use Pennit PCC-02-42 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 26th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Kevin O'Niell, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary J:IPLANNINGIMICHAELIPCC REPORTSIPCC.Q2-42 7 - -,._-.__._.~--~_....,.,"';";"""~'--"":~--.'--._.- ~ () o "6 ~ ~ Co \'1'1 PROJECT lOCATION MEDICAL CENTER PLAZA C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~'&1r. DENNY K. KREMER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~~~: 250 nK" STREET Request: Proposal for the construction of a two story detached single family dwelling with 3 car garage SCAlE; FILE NUMBER: ? behind existing single family dwelling in the R-1 Zone. NORTH No Scale PCC-02-42 C:\DAIFILES\Jocators\PCC0242.cdr 02/12/02 ,. ~f~ "=~ ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~." ~-;:: Planning & Building Department - ~ ~- COY Of 276 Fourth Avenue CHlJ1A VJSrA (619)691-5101 TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED ") -J Development PrOCessing Application Form - Type A Page One tat Conditional Use Permit o Variance o Design Review Check One (staff USP. mlvJ f:.r;j No.: _ FWng Date: I 31 0 -z--- By; . Assigned Plannef:-Jdd~~ ~Lf2::;; Receipt No.: =: ~-!bf Related Cases: N. /' o ZA Pub/Ic Hearing o Special Land Use Permit ~ Areas Only) "c.r~ ~.. Ji.f Miscellaneous: Au t;6~ '5t;:c.cN.D O"lrr- APPLICANT INFORMATION AQQ!!cant Name L/ cC:>ENN' f'.. k!<E/?1EI< Applicant Addf ss Z5~ '"1<" $/ Applicant's Interest in Property .Dtown 0 lease 0 In Escrow e-v. 011- (PI 0,/2.5 - ~/ 0 ~ 1/ '1// -/3eJ3 If appljcant Is not owner, owner's authoriZation o Option to purchase Is required to process request. See signature on Page Two. At~ec;;~9J/ ~1f^,kLI.A/ ~/; 02 L( - tJ 7 fa 'J AtChitec~nt Address / / (PeJ-r"O M/5S/tJiV GCJ126E /<J)j SUrrE'"T ~<::::::'0re/l-~2/. 0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION for aU Pr~t Name 7'::L...- Proposed Us.e f'(RE/11.&i< f'.:J=~/.!)EA/'c~ FG5/LJENT//TL General DesCription of ProPOSed Project (Please use Appendix A to {Jfr:NIde 0 full clescrlptlon oncJ}ustlfJcat/on for the project) /!~ce3SCJt<-Y SE&J/'oJ..{) 2)t-1/6'UIr./~ C//V(/ PUI!SC//1N T 7Z:1 ST/f-rEi' Gel Vt7r<rVr'Vlt;fy'; CcJD~ CV, Ct4 9/CfI/ -(.g{)3 o a reage 0./7 on (If aPPlIcable) (W applicable) FORM A-!JfV PI. (FII>GE 1 OF 2) ."ii. ,', . '.~,Y.~/~>?> '. 12/99 / ~f~ :.... ~ - ~~~=}~ Il~ D = \l) 6l j) E\F)<..J-1I~/L..D C --'~_....~.~..._._-' "-- "'-'-'._-~":"';;.:.:......~:..:._.,. -"-, . ..- '-"-'-~'.'---"'-"-_."-""- .. -. - .. . .... ~ . -', .:' ---"-------'-- -_......~---,---.. '"'-' , ',-;","-.. : 01Y OF GfUIA VISTA CITY OF CHULA VISTA Planning & Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue (619)691-5101 . , (' Development PrOceSSing Application Form Page Two PROPOSED PROJECT (all types) Type of Use Proposed landscape Coverage (% of lot) ~ReSidential DComm. o Ind. DOIher Building Coverage (% of Lot) RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARy TY9r <2! Dwelling Uni!(sh / / Nu~r 0 lots . ~ES5cj LAID vlNI ( / ()Nt: No. of Dwelling nits Proposed Existing JBR 2BR 3+BR Total ($taft I LeA onlyJ Case No.: A acre IVNlT PEIl-LEbdL loT ParkinQ Soaces I I lZe Required by Code: D Off-street Provided: 3 SfA<::.ES ce DeSCription (Acres each of private, common, onci landSCaping) -RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY Existing Parking Spaces Required PENN"'/ k~E"MER. Print Appliccint or Agent Name b S\1t-lJir t4~ Ep... Print Owner N me f parking (size) I ren Iff "PP'ccbIeJ ren Iff app/iCabIe) I-IS-OJ.. Date (, Ie -() J... Date ... ._. _.... . ._"_ ..... _....JJm.._ I FORM A-PAGE 2 OF 2 10 - - .---_... H - _U"-,-,<' -~~ ". .....< "- '>c:<'..r<........,...-;:__.-. ,...~....,; _....~?:~- :.;';~1f:r Planning & (~"dlng Department Planning Division - Development Processing 276 Fourth Avenue, ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 c - CJIY OF 0iUIA VISrA Application Appendix "A" PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NAME: K~E. V"\E.~ ~ ~ ~ lD e:t..lc. E: APPLICANT NAME: b E:-N. ~y \<, \-<~E::.~'Y)E:R ~ 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 detaifs 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 /177?/CH5.b/ FbLMIA/ING; rtk;;;- It ( ., --, '-'"-~'---"-"'--'~'--;::':;--_:"':"~-'-:':c:"-'-'-':~w:~~f~: C APPENDIX "A" PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Application for a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) to allow the construction of a two-story, 2,032 square-foot structure, detached from an existing one-story, 1,707 square-foot single-family residence and attached 200 square-foot, one-car garage, on an existing 7,500 square-foot legal lot addressed as 250 "K" Street, located within a single-family residential zone. Said two-story structure to contain a 1,032 square-foot accessory second dwelling unit ("granny flat") on the second floor, where such development is pennitted as a conditional use. The first floor of the detached structure consists of 1,000 square-feet, containing three off-street parking spaces and an interior stairway providing access to the second floor accessory unit. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION_ Construction of the project is intended to provide residential alternatives for senior members of the Kremer family, who will benefit from an assisted living setting in the near future. This application is being submitted pursuant to, and is intended to confonn with, California State Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2(b)(1), which regulate accessory second dwelling units in City's without adopted ordinances. The proposed development will be designed to comply with Government Code provisions and applicable City Municipal Code requirements including the following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; (B) The lot is zoned for single-family use; (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling; (D) The second unit is detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; (E) The total area of floor space for a detached second unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet; and (G) Requirements relating to height, selback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located; (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. 1:2.., -;. ~'- -~~;-";-~"~-:~_~'::C'~,__ _.~~~_..:~-:_ .~-._:.~~;~~~~'~~~~::t~t~~:~;~ .~;~~t:.~,.. THE cnC'/F CHULA v~;;;,n~~S~LOSURE STAC.oItENT .t;r ~ . :-,,, .\-, .. You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, paymeribl;:}> or campaign contributions. on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the CitY', Council. Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:". 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the 1:)lication or thy ;,antra]!. e.g., owner applicant. contractor. subcontractor, material supplier. . ENN'f !S.::..tS.~ E R.. 2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest _. ~"J1AartnershiP. 3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of ~A . 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City s~, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): _ 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors Wh~ you have assigned ~represent you before the City in this matter. 13 ILL lRtfr - LA)...\~ ViSE ct)1'J,>L,(LTANT (Jort:)) 'iL{(p- '5~73 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No L If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: I - t8 - (J ;l. (NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS ig ture of contractor/applicant ])p~~i nat:~f~~~~~t 13 . Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver. syndicate, this and any other county, city and cauntry, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unil. .. .,-----_._-~_.._- . _.._-";:';_'~-.....,..,.,- ~.' - :..;_:..__:.:::~::.;",-:,,:,:":'..:!'i/1f:r~mi~;,<_ c (' APPENDIX C (1 of 1) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT Permit Applicant: Applicant's Address: Type of Permit: Agreement Date: Deposit Amount: ~l4r \.L. ~~-GtZ- tt'. '~ ~\\()NAL. vI~~ t-i:: ~VV\. IT This Agreement C"Agreemenr) between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts: . Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a. permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and, Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and, Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with providing the Processing Services; Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows: 1. Applicant's Duty to Pay. Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay." 1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty. As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit"). 1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty". 2. City's Duty. City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application. 2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City. IY -_:.:_.:..:....;:..:... ...':'. .P.,_' "_ .,.......:...:::i'.f~~9-)o'..::;;-.;.':~_;. '''~q,~. ( APPENDIX C (2 o(2) c , 2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Penn it for which Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Pennit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement. _ 3. Remedies. 3.1.. Suspension of Processing In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Pennit which is the subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Pennit which may be the subject matter of any other Pennit which Applicant has before the City. 3.2. Civil Collection In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1 Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or pennitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented. 4.2 Governing LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California. and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and perlonnance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. . 4.3. Multiple Signatories. If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the perlonnance of Applicanfs duties herein set forth. 4.4. Signatory Authority. This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant. --- I~ . -..- .--..._.o_-..;..-...-;.___..._:..:... ~ - ~l'J.iiI~~~. ", '-.' . ( APPENDIX C (30f3) (' ,. 4.5 Hold Harmless. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial Ot administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights, except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the' sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers,<>r employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attomey's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought agaj~st the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. 4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such pOlicies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. (- 180.:2-- 8YO~ Dated: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA Dated: By: /b