Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/03/27 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m Wednesday, March 27, 2002 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 23, 2002 and March 13, 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. REPORT: PCC 02-41; Proposed Telecommunication Facility located on Industrial Bouldvard and 1-5 (L Street off-ramp). Applicant: Sprint PCS Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 01-87; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility consisting of nine panel antennas mounted inside of a new roof to be added to an existing picnic shelter; and an associated 324 sf equipment building within Voyager Park on East J Street. Applicant: Sprint PCS Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-13: Conditional Use Permit proposal to permit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory second dwelling unit behind the primary single-family residence, including adding 498 sf to the existing second unit, for a total of 908 sf, at 736 Church Avenue, in compliance with State Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(1 )(A)-(I) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinance. Applicant: Daniel Contreras and R-7b. Planning Commission - 2 - March 27, 2002 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-16; Consideration of amendments to the Eastlake III Planned Community District Regulations Sections II. 3.4.4, Property Development Standards, and 11.3.3.5, Accessory Structures to change the RP-1 and RP-2 required building setbacks and modify the allowable accessory structure width within the front setback. Applicant: The Eastlake Company Project Manager: Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Acl (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 23, 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, McCann, Wi lIett Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Steve Power, Associate Planner Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Willett/McCann) (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of January 9, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-00-24; Adoption of a resolution amending the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan, in order to allow the construction of a double left turn land with associated driveway on East "H" Street, providing direct vehicular access to the Home Depot store located within the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center (725 Plaza Court). Background: Steve Power, Associate Planner reported that the applicant (Home Depot) is proposing to construct a left turn lane with driveway located within the Power Center on East "H" Street. The provision of the Rancho Del Rey SPA I Plan limits left turn lanes to existing ones at major entrances to the Center. Mr. Power stated that since the Power Center was originally planned as an employment park, the Center does not have direct access to major retail tenants as typically found in major retail centers. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January 23, 2002 Furthermore, Mr. Power stated that a traffic study was conducted, which indicated that there would be an improvement in delay times surrounding the Center, specifically where Plaza Court intersects with Paseo Del Rey. The Planning Commission should, therefore, assess the benefit of improved traffic flow, versus the disturbance to the City open space. The applicant has worked closely with the Landscape Division to mitigate as much as possible the visual impacts associated with cutting into the slope and creating a driveway within a designated open space area. The project would also be subject to further review of the landscape plan and wall design by the Design Review Committee. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council modify the Rancho Del Rey SPA I Plan to allow the construction of a new left turn lane with associate driveway providing direct vehicular access to Home Depot. Commission Discussion: Commissioner McCann stated that the traffic study addressed weekend and weekday p.m. peak hour traffic, however, it did not address the weekday a.m. peak hours, which is when there would be significant impact for west-bound traffic. Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineer, stated that the weekday a.m. eastbound traffic going into Home Depot would most likely be minimal because the Home Depot peak hours are 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.. With respect to westbound traffic, the proposed signal would be coordinated with the traffic signals at Del Rey Blvd. and Pas eo del Rey. The signal at K-Mart is a "half signal", meaning it only controls traffic going westbound. Typically, the cars that get stopped at K-Mart are the ones that have made the right or left turn from Tierra Del Rey. Commissioner Cortes inquired what the spacing requirement is for the distance between I ight signals. Mr. Leyva responded that on a prime arterial road, the spacing would be 2 signals per mile, which is approximately what currently exists on H Street. The distance between the proposed signal and the closest existing signal is approximately 680 feet, which is close enough so that they both can be synchronized and work concurrently. Commissioner O'Neill stated that it appears that no consideration was given to pedestrian traffic, specifically, the day laborers, hence the lack of a sidewalk along the driveway, which could pose a safety issue. He also inquired if this stretch was still Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - January 23, 2002 designated as a scenic roadway. Mr. Power responded that the designation still exists. If the Commission were to grant the amendment to the RDR SPA Plan, it would need to make the necessary findings and concur that the mitigation measures with respect to landscaping, are in conformance with the open space provisions of the General Plan. Public Hearing Opened 6:35 John Ziebarth, representing Home Depot, 800 W. Ivy Street, San Diego, CA 92101 stated that they endeavored to address three factors for this project, they are: o How to improve access o How to improve existing traffic circulation o How to maintain the landscape open space. Mr. Ziebarth stated that the proposed driveway would el iminate approximately one mile of driving for eastbound traffic under present conditions to get to Home Depot, which in turn reduces travel time and saves congestion on the roadway system. He further stated that their peak hour is between 10:00 to 2:00, therefore, any impacts on westbound a.m. traffic would be negligible. Upon review of the worst-case intersection analysis, which is Saturday at noon at Paseo Del Rey, the delay time is reduced by approximately 15%. Mr. Ziebarth stated that the landscaping plan calls for the removal of existing trees, which will then be relocated in the same general area. Additionally, there will be approximately 12 new 36" box-trees. Public Hearing closed 7:05. Commissioner Thomas inquired how many 15 to 20 feet trees are being removed and relocated to a different site. Mary Hofmockel, Landscape Architect responded that a total of approximately 67 trees that will be removed (11 trees in the median, 37 in the parkway and open space slopes, and 19 in the parking lot). Because of their size and maturity, these trees will most likely not be able to be relocated because their survivability is minimal. There will be a total of 26 trees replaced. The applicant agreed to replace within the open space areas the remainder of the trees that were removed. Ms. Hofmockel further stated that planting large trees is not cost effective and, in fact, a younger tree grows faster. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - January 23, 2002 Commissioner O'Neill stated that, in his opinion, the traffic impacts on H Street have been underestimated. He further stated that he could support this project irrespective of the landscaping issues and the lack a pedestrian walkway along the driveway, which can be addressed with minor effort. However, he believes that the timing for this project is not right because it should not precede any of the future road improvements, irrespective of SR-12s, that will improve and give quicker access to westbound traffic going on to 1- 805. Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the 250 foot stacking/deceleration lane on H Street, running into an uphill 180 foot stacking within the parking lot. He further stated that he would I ike to see enhanced signage that clearly depicts access leading to Home Depot. Commissioner Willett stated that he observed a heavy semi-trucks having difficulty maneuvering the turn (egress and ingress). MSC (Hall/Willett) (6-1) that the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council modify the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan to allow the construction of a dual left turn lane with associated driveway on East H Street providing direct vehicular access to Home Depot store located within the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center. The Planning Commission approved the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and directs staff to work with applicant to: o Develop appropriate roadway signage clearly indicating access to Home Depot. o Consider the installation of a pedestrian sidewalk along the driveway, and o Develop a landscaping plan which mitigates as much as possible the impacts of the trees and vegetation that will be removed, utilizing as much mature vegetation as possible. Motion carried, with Commissioner O'Neill voting against the project. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 23, 2002 2. Public Hearing: SUPS 01-05; proposal to construct a 1,240 sf car wash, 840 sf 2- bay lube area, and a 435 sf customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and driveway circulation. Background: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner reported that this item was continued from the January 9,2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to discuss and address the Commission's concerns about the project with the property ownership group. The following are design changes to the project: o Altered circulation plan in order to eliminate potential stacking of vehicles exiting the car wash from entering onto the dedicated alley. o Car wash and lube center vehicles will exit from the northerly driveway onto Third Avenue o In order to accommodate on-site stacking circulation, the 5 employee parking spaces shown on the previous plan along the north property line will now be access from the dedicated alley rather than from the on-site driveways. o Closure of the car wash exit onto the alley will allow for 2 new compact parking spaces. A total of 7 parking spaces along the alley, as well as the handicapped parking space adjacent to the customer service building will neate the need for a zone variance for parking. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 01-05 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft Redevelopment Agency resolution. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Hall inquired if any consideration has been given to providing a queing pocket at the entrance of the premises in order to prevent cars from impeding traffic flow along Third Avenue. Mr. Phelps responded that a portion of Third Avenue will be widened and will provide an additional travel lane along the entire frontage of the project and will be red curbed to allow ease in access to the facility. Public Hearing opened 7:50 Lee Hope, 5055 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA reviewed the project's different Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - January 23, 2002 components regarding location of trash receptacled, handicap parking, and on-site ci rcu lation. Mr. Hope further stated that according to the analysis done by their consultant, a six vehicle on-site queing is adequate. Furthermore, there should not be any obstruction to traffic flow along Third Avenue because the footprint of the project will be set back by 8 feet, thereby creating an extra lane where vehicles can pull into prior to entering the premises. Dean Robinson, 404 Villa Los Cielos, San Diego, CA, carwash consultant stated that according to industry criteria, Third Avenue would be considered a "B" location because it is not a major traffic artery. Other locations within the City, such as, the car washes along Broadway and Bonita Rd.lI-805, are considered "A" locations, having high levels of traffic, which would dictate a much larger queing area. The national average projections for a "B" location car wash, averages between 78 and 1 04 cars per day. Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineer, stated that the projections are 8 to 1 0 cars per hour during the summer on a 1 O-hour work day. In the event that all 8 to 10 cars show up at the same time, the parking lane on Third Avenue could be used for cars waiting to get into the car wash. John Horeman, 1565 Hotel Circle S., San Diego, Traffic Engineer, stated that a queing analysis was conducted based performa and how quickly the cars can be serviced. The 95 percentile queing is three vehicles and the project allows for six vehicles. According to the mathematical calculations, the business would have to attract three times more business than what they are anticipating for a "B" location In order for there to be a queing problem. Public Hearing closed 8:30. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he does not see how this business can be viable based on the low projections of business they are anticipating. He is concerned that because of this, the use will be expanded in order to incorporate other services to attract more business. Furthermore, although he does not oppose the use (car wash) and the project would improve this blighted location with a new building and landscape improvements, however, he is concerned that the project is still too ambitious for the size of this location. Commissioner Hall stated that he too shares Cmr. Castaneda's concerns and in his opinion the applicant has deliberately utilized very conservative figures in the projections of the amount of business they are anticipating in order to make the business fit the size of the site. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - January 23, 2002 Commissioner McCann stated that although he recognizes some of the expressed concerns, he believes that waiting for the "perfect" project to come along in the future would not be in the best interest of this area that is in dire need for improvement. Cmr. McCann further stated that if the anticipated worst case scenario were to happen and this business were more successful than anticipated to the point that it lost business because it could not provide the service and accommodate its patrons, then this would solely be a self-imposed quandary that the business owner would have to deal with. Commissioner Cortes stated his conscience could not allow him to support this project, which in his opinion would be settling for the sake of simply putting something on the site. He further stated that in his opinion the area south of L Street has been neglected far too long by the City. MSC (Thomas/McCann) (3-4-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution SUPS 01-05 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft RDA resolution provided that: LJ the site plan be modified to close off access to the alley from the site, and [J that the handicap parking space be more appropriately repositioned to another location as long at it is compliant with ADA requirements. Motion failed. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-31; Modification to Conditional Use Permit C-68-20, for an existing self-service car wash located at 298 Broadway. Staff recommended that this item be withdrawn as there are pending procedural issues that need to first be resolved. 4. REPORT: Accessory Second Unit Jim Sandoval stated that staff distributed to the Commission a matrix depicting what staff's recommendations are on various issues requesting the Commission's opinion and whether they agree or disagree with staff's recommendations. The objective would then be to use that as a tool for drafting the Secondary Accessory Unit Ordinance. It is also staff's recommendation that a workshop be scheduled for February 20 to go over the materials. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - January 23, 2002 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Sandoval reported that the Commission directed staff to follow-up and ensure that the wireless facility and landscaping adjacent to the Country Club were installed in accordance with what the applicant submitted in his proposal and the Commission approved. Mr. Sandoval reassured the Commission that staff has spent a considerable amount of time working with the various carrier and a resolution to this problem will be implemented in the very near future. Robert Medina, representing Cingular Wireless, 203 State Place, San Diego, CA. apologized for the appearance of the site and stated that through circumstances and miscommunication with other carriers on the site, the landscaping was abandoned. He further stated that they are more than willing to do their fair share and install the landscaping that they originally proposed and the Commission approved, and they are working with the other carriers toward that end. Mr. Medina also stated that they are working with staff and their goal is to resubmit landscaping plans, and have it implemented by the end of February. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 9:25 p.m. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 13, 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, McCann, Willett Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner Martin Miller, Associate Planner Mary Hofmockel, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. RESOLUTION: Overturning Zoning Administrator decision to deny PCC 02- 21 for a weekend pet adoption facility at 875 East H Street. MSC (McCann/Thomas) (7-0) that the Planning Commission approve resolution PCC 02- 21 granting an appeal overturning the decision of the Zoning Administrator denying a Conditional Use Permit for a weekend pet adoption facility in the parking lot at 875 East H Street incorporating the following amendments to the resolution: Q that the individual name of the applicant be removed from the resolution stating that it be "a non-profit pet adoption facility", Q that the term of the permit expire after three years, with the possibility of renewal, and Q that yearly reviews of the project be conducted by staff . Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 13, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-43; Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Precise Plan PCC 74-27 to add 12,900 sf to existing building and to relocate and enlarge (from 6,000 to 12,000 gallons) an existing underground fuel storage tank. Applicant: Pacific Bell. Commissioners O'Neill, McCann and Hall excused themselves from the dais. Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that the 2.79 acre project site is located on the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Apache Drive and is currently developed with a two story building enclosing a telecommunication switching facility. The project site contains a 6,000 gallon capacity Underground Storage Tank (UST) , landscaped area and a partially paved six-stalled parking area. The site is adjacent to open space and/or residential developments in all four directions. The project consists of a 12,900 sf two story building addition along the west end of the existing building and will be used for an equipment room on the first floor and record storage on the second floor. The project also proposes to remove a 6,000 gallon UST and replace it with a 12,000 gallon UST in a different location. The tank is necessary to provide fuel to the emergency electric generator system required for such facilities. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 02-43 recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 02-17) and approve a conditional use permit to amend conditional use permit and Precise Plan PCC 74-27. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Castaneda stated that in his opinion the project lacked visual appeal and inquired if the project had gone through Design Review. Jim Sandoval responded that the project would not trigger Design Review because its not a new structure and is not a substantial increase to require it. Furthermore, the goal is for it to be a non-descript building. Public Hearing Opened and Closed 6:45: Commissioner O'Neill stated he disagreed with Cmr. Castaneda's comment on the aesthetics of the building. He further stated that the way Pac Bell designs these building; they either blend in with their surroundings or disappear and are not there to make an architectural statement. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 13, 2002 Rafael Garcia, 3880 Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego, representing Pac Bell stated that as of September 11, their desire to be as non-descriptive as possible is even greater. When they removed the existing red and white sign, what was then exposed was the old Pacific Bell Telephone and Telegraph Bell. Their goal is to blend in and be as non-descript as possible. MSC (WillettlThomas) (4-0-0-3) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 02-43 recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 02-17) and approve a conditional use permit to amend conditional use permit and Precise Plan PCC 74-27. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-20: Consideration of Amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan to adjust boundary between Neighborhood R- 7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and re-allocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-Oa to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b. PCS 02-05; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map creating 1,392 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres of Village Six of Otay Ranch. Applicant: Otay Ranch Company Background: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner reviewed the proposal as described in the staff report and stated that what is being considered tonight is Otay Ranch's portion of Village 6; the Commission having recently reviewed McMillin's portion of the Tentative Map for Village 6. The proposal calls for amending Village Six SPA Plan to redesignate Neighborhood R-7a Single-family to Residential Multi-family and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to R-9a and 7b. Additionally, the Tentative Subdivision Map creates 1,392 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres. The McMillin project had an access provided in Neighborhood R-3 to R-7b when it was a Single Family neighborhood. Since this is being changed to a multi-family, staff believes that that access should be deleted on McMillin's Final Map to eliminate multi-family traffic traveling through the single-family neighborhood. There will be two accesses to Neighborhood R-7 off of View Park Way. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing both a guarded and gated entrances on the two Core Promenades, which are 36 feet wide. The gated entrance is proposed on Magdalena Street and the guarded entrance on View Park Street. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 13, 2002 In 1996 the Otay Ranch Company proposed gating in Vi II ages One and Five. Staff prepared the Gated Communities Policy Paper to analyse the issues; the findings were: 1) that gated entrances create a sense of exclusivity with a community, 2) increased property values, 3) gave residents a false sense of security, and 4) created response problems for emergency vehicles. Council decided during the SPA One Plan process to prohibit physical barriers across any road but allow guarded entrances. Furthermore, access could only be restricted from dusk to dawn. Guarded entances in Otay Ranch Company's portion of Village One and Five have had mixed results. The guarded access on Santa Lucia between Heritage Elementary School and Neighborhood R-21 has restricted exiting out of the elementary school to right turns only because of the amount of traffic and proximity of the entrance into Neighborhood R- 21 which is directly across from the main entrance from the school. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan to adjust boundary between Neighborhood R-7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and re- allocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-Oa to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, and approve Tentative Subdivision Map creating 1,392 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on 201.1 acres of Village Six of Otay Ranch. Commission Discussion: Chair O'Neill inquired if the streets behind the gated/guarded entranced are private or public streets. Mr. Rosaler, responded that the City's policy is that if you restrict access through a street, the streets behind it then become private. If there is full public access, they are then public streets. Commissioner Thomas stated that previously when the McMillin project was reviewed, his main objection was the manner in which the affordable housing element was addressed. He asked if the same situation applies to Otay Ranch's project. Mr. Rosaler responded that, in fact, the SPA Plan for McMillin granted them 100 units of secondary accessory units to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. However, Otay Ranch Company has satisfied their affordable housing obligation in the mixed-use project in Village I. Commissioner Castaneda asked for clarification on the hours that the guarded/gated entrances would be restricted. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 13, 2002 Mr. Rosaler responded that according to the existing Council Policy, the entrances would be restricted only from dusk to dawn; any other time would be open to the public. Commissioner Castaneda further stated that the restricted hours would take effect after the peak 5:00 hour when residents are coming home from work and was concerned with potential impacts on East Palomar Street with vehicle queing. Cmr. Castaneda asked if any traffic analysis was done. Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that there are design standards for gated entrances. Additionally another look wi II be taken at the traffic plan when it comes time to approving improvements and final plans. Cmr. Castaneda suggested implementing specific hours, instead of dusk to dawn. Commissioner Hall inquired about the status of the Park Master Plan. He further asked if there are any new elements contained within the Plan that could potentially impact the developers where the City would then be placed in a predicament where they would need to go back to the developers and re-negotiate parks development within the Planned Communities. Mary Hofmockel, Principal Landscape Architect, responded that the Draft Parks Master Plan, excluding the financial portion, will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 21, 2002, and it will then follow its course, ultimately for Counci I approval. Ms. Hofmockel further stated that a Needs Assessment was conducted and an allocation of facilities based on that assessment. This park site will take into consideration what was identified as the program elements that we would like to see incorporated into that site. Public Hearing Opened 7:25 Kent Aden, Otay Ranch Company, 350 W. Ash Street, San Diego, CA stated that the project compliments McMillin's Tentative Map. The project provides: o the site for the 7-acre park, o the balance of the site for the 10-acre elementary school, o the commercial core to serve the Village, o the right-of-way and transit station for the future lite-rail transit, o the pedestrian bridge, which gives access to Village V to the north, o the right-of-way for a portion of future SR-125, o a funding mechanism for the balance of the first three phases of Olympic Parkway, o additional access to the private high school site approved on the McMillin Plan, and o this project is accommodating the excess dirt from Eastlake for the balance of Olympic Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - March 13, 2002 Parkway that will complete the length from 1-805 to the the Olympic Training Center by the end of this year. Mr. Aden stated that out of 183 conditions of approval, the only one where this is disagreement with staff's recommendation is the guarded/gated entrances. Their experience is that there is overwhelming approval from the communities where they exist and to their knowledge there have not been any complaints. Furthermore, for clarification purposes, the gate design is proposed to be like the old-fashioned wooden traffic arms that lift up and down, not an ominous gate, but rather another method of slowing down traffic in the community. Mr. Aden further stated that a better generic Condition #39 would be to provide two access points to R-8 and R9b, which are acceptable to staff. If that condition cannot be met, than clearly the guarded/gated entrances would be removed. Close public hearing 7:30. Commissioner McCann stated that while walking precincts and speaking with residents that live within a gated/guarded community, their comments were favorable and they were supportive of gated/guarded entrances. MSC (Willett/Cortes) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Village Six SPA Plan Amendment to adjust the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b, re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from Single-family SF-4 to Residential Multi-family RM-2, and to reallocate 47 dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and 7b. Motion carried. MSC (Willett/Castaneda) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Subdivision Map C.V.T.02-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Resolution PCS 02-05 modifying Condition #39 recommending approval of the guarded/gated entrances subject to approval of a site plan that depicts two points of access to the multi-family neighborhood and is consistent with the additional conditions imposed on Village 1 and 5 which are pertinent guarded entrances. Motion carried. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission ~!f?. --- Item No.: I em Of CHULA VlsrA Departn1en.1: of Plan.n.in.g an.d Building Date: March 27, 2002 To: Planning Commission From: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Facility Industrial Boulevard & 1-5 L Street Off-Ramp, PCC-02-4I (Sprint) In January, the City received the application noted above. Staffhas worked with the applicant since then to resolve some strategic issues related to the location of the facility due to future development proposals forthcoming on the site (the Toys R Us industrial zoned parcel south of the Fun-4-AII facility). In addition, the question arises as to what would be the most desirable design for camout1aging the telecommunication facility to make it more aesthetically pleasing and simultaneously provide the most optimum potential for the future co-location of other telecommunication providers on the same site. As you know, the Planning Commission reviewed four design alternatives before ultimately deciding on the use of mono-pines at the San Diego Country Club Golf Course. In this case, the applicant proposal includes photo-simulations for two proposals that include: 1. A Mono-pine that would allow for up to two carriers on the same pole; 2. A Mono-palm that would allow for only one carrier but would allow for the future development of two or more mono-palms in a row; Ifneither proposal is preferred, the applicant has indicated that in the near future they could present a 3. Mono-eucalyptus Ultimately, the applicant seeks some direction as to which camouflaging method is preferred by the Planning Commission before preparing more concrete construction documents for a future public hearing before the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: :t. Meeting Date: 3/27/02 ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: PCC-01-87; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility consisting of nine panel antennas mounted inside of a new roof to be added to an existing picnic shelter; and an associated 324-square-foot equipment building within Voyager Park on East J Street. Applicant: Sprint PCS The project was originally scheduled for the September 14, 200 I Planning Commission hearing, and then the October 17,2001 Planning Commission hearing, but was continued both times because it had not gone to the Parks and Recreation Commission first. Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility in Voyager Park on East J Street. The project will consist of nine panel antennas mounted inside of a new roof to be added to an existing picnic shelter, and a 324-square-foot equipment building. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt pursuant to CEQA, Class 3 of Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On February 21, 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the project be conditionally approved (see conditions 7- 13 in attached Resolution PCC-01-87). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-01-87 (Attachment 2) recommending approval of the Sprint wireless communications facility, subject to the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The project site is the southern end of an 11.24 public park (Voyager Park) on East J Street in the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. Several small picnic shelters are scattered throughout the grassy park, which is used for various sports by the general public as well as the middle school adjacent to the west. The largest picnic shelter, where the antennas are proposed, is a 16- foot-square concrete slab covered by a pitched metal roof overlooking Telegraph Canyon Road to the south. 2. General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use General Plan Site: Parks & Recreation Zoning PC- Public & Quasi Public Current Land Use Voyager Park Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 3/27/02 General Plan Norm: Residential, Low-Medium Soum: Open Space East Residential, Low -Medium West: Public & Quasi Public Zoning PC-Single-Family Residenlial PC-Open Space PC-Apartmenl Residemial PC-Public & Quasi Public Currenl Land Use Single-Family Residemial Open Space Mulli-Family Residenlial Rancho Del Rey Middle School 3. Proposal Sprint PCS proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility in Voyager Park on East J Street. The project will consist of installing nine panel antenrJas inside of a ten-foot-high roof extension to be added to an existing 16-foot-square picnic shelter on the south end of the park. The total height of the roof will be 27 feet 6 inches. The roof extension will be enclosed on all four sides, and consist of a signal transparent composite material (resembling off-white stucco) that allows for minimal radio-ftequency attenuation. It will have 8-inch-wide archilCctural pop-outs on all four corners and on both sides of vents centered on each of the four panels. The top of the roof will match the orange metal roof of the existing structure. Approximately 200 feet east of the picnic shelter, telephone, electrical and radio equipment for the antennas will be placed in a 9-foot-high, 12' x 27' slump concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall building that will resemble existing park facilities and appear as an associated facility. The building will be integrated into a landscaped area, and additional foliage will be added to minimize visual impacts from surrounding areas. Access to the site will be from lhe existing access road off of East J Street. No new streets, parking facilities, strcct widening improvements or pedestrian paths are necessary for development of the proposed project. The City's Parks & Recreation Department is supportive of this proposal, which will provide enhanced cellular service along Telegraph Canyon Road and to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed wireless communications facility is an Unclassified Use, according to Section 19.54 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Section 19.54.010 states that matters "possessing characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various zones herein defined" are unclassified uses, and, as such, are required to have Conditional Use Permits. Because the proposal is to architecturally integrate the facility into an existing structure, rather than construct a new one, staff had been processing the project administratively. However, because staff received several phone calls from adjacent residents concerned about the project, and one opposition letter containing six signatures (Attachment 3), the Zoning Administrator decided to refer this project to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Section 19.14.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code states that, "The Zoning Administrator may, at her/his option, refer any of the matters on Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 3f27/02 which she/he is authorized to rule and/or issue a permit to the Planning Commission for review. " 4. Public Concerns Attachment 3, the letter of opposition with six signatures, lists six objections. Following are those objections, along with stalt's response. I. The proposed antenna site is within 200 feet of the nearest home in Bolero. The potential for noise and vandalism within the park will increase with the installation of this facility. Batteries for the antennas will be housed inside of an equipment building constructed of slump concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall, which will muffle any noise generated. Noise from the equipment should not be audible from adjacent residences. 2. Aesthetics of antenna site will conflict with and detract from neighborhood. Landscape architects!i'o!l/ rhe city's Parks & Recreation Department reviewed this proposal and are satisfied with the appearance of the proposed addition to the picnic shelter's roof which will hide the antennas from sight. In addition, they approved the location oj' the proposed equipment building, which will match the color and mare rial of" rlie orlier buildings/structures in the park. 3. Traffic will increase from Sprint maintenance personnel. The wireless communicationsfacility will not generate additional traffic other than a maintenance call by one or two employees approximately once a month. 4. Failure of city to notify Rancho del Rey Middle School of proposal. A public hearing notice jiir the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission hearing was sent to the Sweetwater Union High School regarding this proposal. 5. Failure of city to notify all residents involved. Public hearing notices jiJr both the Zoning Administrator's September 14, 2001 consideration date and the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission hearing were sent to all property owner.I' within 500 feet of Voyager Park. 6. Detrimental effect site would have on property values in neighborhood. Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 3/27/02 The Pacific Southwestern Realtors Association states that they have no data to confirm that antennas hove a detrimental effect on property values. According to some realtors, however, certain buyers have indicated that they do not want to see antennas from their properties. Questions from other adjacent property owners pertained to health and safety issues. Planning staff explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) governs wireless communications facilities; that the proposed project is required to comply with FCC regulations; and that, per the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments are not allowed to consider environmental effects of radio ftequency emissions when evaluating an application for a facility. 5. Analvsis In order to accomplish its desirell radius of service, the applicant researched other potential sites for the proposed wireless communications facility. One such site, the Pacific Bell building located on the corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Apache Drive, has a building height restriction that would not enable the facility to be built there. On the hillside just west of the buillling, tests were conducted for a potential monopalm. The results revealed that the coverage would be insufficient. No other sites in that immediate vicinity were investigated because the rest of the area is either residential or would not sufficiently cover the area to thc west. Candidates located on East Naples Court, north of Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, were rejected because they were too far west. The only non-residential sites in the radius of service area are Voyager Park, a grade school and the Rancho Del Rey Middle School. When Sprint contacted Rancho del Rey Middle School to seek permission to conduct a drive test, they were informed by the Sweetwater School District that a moratorium had been placed on all new cell sites. With the attached conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and the General Plan. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Letter of Opposition 4. Disclosure Statement h.' ~ii]r'/--1 ~((/ R..to.NCHO DEL REY MIDDLE SCHOOL \ \ RDR SPA III / C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT SPRINT pcs PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT Easl 'J ' Street, Lot A ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for the installation and operation of a telecommunication facility. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCC-01-87 ':Ihomel lannin I h r I I t:;fsl cc01 7. r 7 p gc eryclocaa p 8 cd .10.01 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 01-87 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC- 01-87, FOR SPRINT PCS TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IN VOYAGER PARK ON EAST J STREET. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division on June 19,2001 by Sprint PCS; and, WHEREAS, said applicant requested permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility consisting of nine panel antennas mounted inside of a roof extension to be added to an existing 16-foot-square picnic shelter on the south end of Voyager Park on East J Street; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; 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 scheduled for September 14,2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and was continued; and WHEREAS, the hearing was rescheduled for October 17, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the Planning Commission and was continued; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 27, 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 permit 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 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. ATTACHMENT 2 Resolulion No. Page #2 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 cellular facility is necessary to provide and maintain a quality cellular phone system in Chula Vista. The proposed wireless communications facility will enhance service for Sprint customers along Telegraph Canyon Road and the surrounding residential areas. Improved coverage and capacity for this system will ensure availability to business users, personal users, and emergency service providers (including sheriff, police, fire, and paramedics), thus enhancing emergency service and response. 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 propcrty or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not pose a danger to the health, safety or general welfare to the general public. Emissions from cellular antennas have been shown to be below any levels that would cause hazardous biological effects. In addition, cellular antenna emissions are so far below all recognized safety standards that they constitute no hazard to public health or safety. The facility will comply with the Federal standards for radio frequency emissions. and has been conditioned to require that the applicant prove compliance with the accepted ANSI standards for emissions control. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. This Conditional Use Permit is conditioned to require the permittee and property owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use. The conditions of this permit are approximately in proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that the land use impact will be minimal. Monthly maintenance visits that the project may generate will not result in the intensification of the use of the site and is an insignificant increase in the traffic for the neighborhood. The integration of the antennas inside of a revised structure will not be a visual intrusion in Chula Vista. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-01-87 subject to the following conditions, whereby the applicant and/or property owners shall: Resolution No. Page #3 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT I. Construct the Project as shown or described in the application, elevations, photo simulations and other exhibits submitted for review at the Planning Commission public hearing dated March 27, 2002. The picnic shelter roof addition shall support no more than nine antennas. The telephone, electrical and radio equipment shall be placed inside a new 324-square-foot building directly east of the picnic shelter, and shall match the colors and materials of existing structures in Voyager Park. 2. Cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in co-locating additional antennas on subject property provided said co-Iocatees have received a conditional use permit for such use at said site from the City. Permittee 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 usc (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. 3. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months of the Building Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a project 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 thc 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. 4. 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. 5. Obtain building permits from the Chula Vista Building Division. Plans must comply with 1998 CBC and CEC; also, a soils report and structural calculations will be required. 6. 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. Resolution No. Page #4 PARKS AND RECREATION 7. 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. Disruption of existing 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 approval of the Director of Public Works, the Director of Recreation, and the Director of Building and Park Construction or designees. 8. Damage of existing park grounds and/or facilities resulting from the installation and/or maintenance of the proposed structures including, but not limited to, turf areas, walkways, irrigation systems, any and all site utilities and fixtures shall be replaced in kind and under the authority and supervision of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Building and Park Construction or designees. 9. Installation and scheduled maintenance of the antenna and related components shall be coordinated with parks operations personnel and on-site Recreation staff prior to commencement of work to minimize the potential for conflicts with maintenance operations and recreation programs occurring at the site. 10. Any disruption or interruption of site service resulting from the installation of and/or continued maintenance of the antenna and related components shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, the Director of Recreation, and the Director of Building and Park Construction or designees. II. Prior to issuance of any permits required for construction of the project, Landscape Improvement Construction Plans shall receive the approval of the Director of Planning and Building, the Director of Building and Park Construction, and the Director of Public Works or designees. The Landscape Improvement Construction Documents shall include the following information: A. Identification of any and all eXlstmg site features, including utilities, drainage systems, topography, landscape, irrigation, and hardscape that are anticipated to be disturbed by construction activity related to the project. B. A construction phasing plan. C. A demolition plan clearly delineating the area to be disturbed. D. Appropriate notes, specifications, and construction details that describe the construction methods and materials to be utilized to restore site features to original condition. E. Appropriate notes, specifications, and construction details that describe the construction methods and materials to be utilized to construct proposed structures. .1 Resolulion No. Page #5 F. Indication of how the existing irrigation will be affected by the improvements; how the irrigation system will bc restored to working conditions; and how the proposed shrubs/trees surrounding the equipment building will be irrigated. G. A certification from a structural engineer stating that the columns of the picnic shelter will support the additional weight of the antennas and the enclosure. If the currently existing columns are adequate to support the additional weight, the applicant is to consider improving the columns so that their size is in proportion with the size of the improved shade structure. H. Location of transformer providing electrical power for the wireless facility, and location of meter. 12. Prior to issuance of any permits required for construction of the project, Sprint and the Public Works Department shall negotiate compensation for rental revenue loss on the picnic shelter during cunstructiun of the wireless facility. 13. The Planning Commission shall address the feasibility of the development of a master plan for the identificatiun of potential public owned facilities/land sites for the location of PCS antenna/facilities. In order to promote the evaluation of the proposed site for co- location opportunities. thc master plan shall outline a process through which the City shall solicit proposals from all interested PCS antenna/facilities providers when any provider identifies an intercst in a potential public owned site. OTHER CONDITIONS 14. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months of the Building Division's final inspcctiun, the applicant shall submit a report to the Director of Planning and Building that provides cumulative field measurements of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with current standards specified in the Municipal Code 1'01' park uses. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the Dircctor of Planning and Building for consistency with the project proposal dated June] lJ. 2001 ~lI1d Municipal Code noise :;tandards. If on review the City finds that the project dues not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify the permit. 15. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit tu advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welf~lre which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, thc City. in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee can not, in thc normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 16. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and inefft:ctive if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Resolution No. Page #6 17. Upon cessation of the busincss operations and use of the light standard for antennas by the applicant, the applicant has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Department and/or remove the wireless communications facility ti'om thc site. Any changes on the conditional use permit shall require modification. 18. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, hom (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-discrctionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreemcnt to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated. bclow. 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. 19. Project site shall be inspccted six months subsequent to the issuance of building permits to check conformance with project plans and conditions of approval. 20. This permit shall expire live (S) years after the date of its approval by the Planning Commission. After the first live (5) years, 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 shall be modified from its original approval. 21. 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 bc rcturned to the Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owncr Date Signature of Representati ve Date Resolulion No. Page #7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-01-87 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 27th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Kevin O'Neill, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary ---~. -- .~- .--- .-;---- f~ ::: '~. "., \..",' \' b \;:::-: ,=:' - ~ ------ .. -' ~eptember 13,2001 SEP 4 2001 Chula Vista Civic Center 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Case Dumber PCC-ol-87 Dear Ms. Vander Bie: Below you will find my signature and those of my neighbors who oppose the approval of the installation of a SPRINT PCS cellular antenna site in Voyager Park. Our neighborhood, Bolero at Rancho del Rey, borders the park. Our objections at this time are as follows: I. The proposed antenna sile is within 200 feet of the nearest borne in Bolero. The potential for noise and vandalism within the park will increase with the installation of this facility, 2. The aesthetics of the cellular antenna site will conflict with, and detract, from our neighborhood. /,:::;? ';Jibe increased 1raffic of SPRINT maintenance personnel servicing the antenna station. "i\)YII'UIi\::j3ilure of the city to no1ifY Rancho del Rey Middle School of the proposed site, The middle :",i;;;;;i~~s the park facilities, along with many other sports organizations. for physical '~:=::.:~:=:-- -"'~--~~ '::~ii!\::i!~!rny, the overall detrimental affect such a site would have on property values in our ",:}'>'ti':}f!lCJghborhood. .--,-".-;""""-",,-,,,-,,--,,:<-;., Sincerely. % '('~1 aJ s ~/) ;..L J' (p a~.<..{I'// <. ))/ L..-~ %~V!0tj (VTs AbUlf2:U \ CATHL YN COONS 1288 AGUIRRE DRIVE f)1o:tth~Vv'Seel" l2-7JAbVIIZf--fV~ C YI~_y;i~~~'YII.-iy~l~ W- tl~ ./ ,.;.,-:.,.,.,.,.,.;-,...._'...-.... , .. .. .. ... '1fjjl;LiJ; C a..-:-/,Pe.I' r if\. 0 Aji.l'f"'2, Di'". i 2'6i Aj ~',rre vr. ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix B THE cr,( )F CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ST,. ...:MENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Ct'>X 'Pes A~,,>e,-t'S L,L. C G~ csf C'hu.\o.. \\,,5.-ta... ~b/ 0. 5P~I~1 1'(.. ~ 2. If any person> identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. 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 beneficiarj or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City stx:, 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. J)A CO(\Su\t~ fj ~'('OOp \ry ~(,f1\C'\. ,,^DOre,~ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X- If yes, state which Councilmember(s): (NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) Date: Pn * Person is JejineJ as: "Any individual. jirm. co-parllJt!rship. joint venture u5sociarion. social club. Fearernai orgam=alion. corporation. f!swte. trust. receIver, Sl'ndicQle, this and anv olha cmf/(v, cit1' .1nd countT'.' city munlL'lpalirl'. district, or other political .';uhdivlsion, or an,v other group or '-'()/11hlf1~{ion acting LlS :.}-~nlr- , ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ::::3 Meeting Date: 3/27/02 ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13, proposal to permit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory second dwelling unit behind the primary single-family residence, including adding 498-square-feet to the existing second unit, for a total of 908-square-feet, at 736 Church A venue, in compliance with State Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(I)(A)-(l) for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. Applicant: Daniel Contreras The project was originally scheduled for the November 21,2001 Planning Commission hearing, but was continued due to some changes in the application. The property owner proposes to add 498- square-feet to an existing 408-square-foot second dwelling unit, and permit the structure as an accessory second unit. It would include a living room, kitchen, full bath, and two bedrooms, in compliance with the applicable provisions ofthe State Government Code. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a) new construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC - 02-13, based on the findings and including the conditions contained therein for an accessory second dwelling unit, per State Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(I )(A)-(I), for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The project site is behind an existing 904-square-foot single-family home on a 6,534-square-foot lot. A wooden fence runs along the side property lines, the back of a commercial building on the adjacent western lot serves as a fence in the rear. The lot is bordered by single-family homes to the north, south, and east, across Church A venue. The property abuts commercial property to the west. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The project is located in the R-I Single-Family Residence Zone, and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per gross acre). Accessory second units are deemed consistent with the zoning and General Plan per State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(5). / Page 2, Item: _ Meeting Date: 3/27/02 General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: North: South: -East: West: Residential, Low-Medium R-I Residential, Low-Medium R-I Residential, Low-Medium R-l Residential, Low-Medium R-l Commercial-Professional & C-C Administrative Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Stone Realty , Proposal The proposal is to add 498-square-feet to an existing 408-square-foot second dwelling unit that was converted from a garage, and permit the structure as an accessory second unit. The unit, behind an existing 904-square-foot primary single-family home, would include a two-stall (404-square-feet) attached garage. The architectural style and color of the accessory second unit would match the existing home, which has Pink Butl stucco with Faded Rose wood siding, Belle Glade fascia and trim, and gray asphalt roofing. The proposal is in compliance with state guidelines for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances. A conditional use permit is required in order to allow the city to determine compliance with the provisions as provided by the state government code, which states the following (Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(l)(A)-(I)): (h) (l) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July 1. 1983 or within 120 days after receiving itsfirst application, the local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use permitfor the creation of an accessory second unit if the unit complies with all of the following: (A) The unit is not intended/or sale or may he rented (B) The lot is zonedfor single~family or multi~/amily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single~/amily dwelling. (D) The accessory second unit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot. (E) The increasedjloor area ()!"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. fi. (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 o/ficer i/private sewage disposal system is utilized. ANALYSIS: The proposed accessory second unit appears to meet the above criteria, as outlined below: ~ Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 3/27/02 (A) The unit is not intended for sale. Selling it apart form the primary residence on the lot would require subdivision, and the underlying zone for this parcel would not allow that. (B) The proposed accessory second unit is in a R-l Single Family Residence Zone. (C) The proposed 906-square-foot single-family dwelling unit would be constructed on a lot where there is an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The proposed accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot. (E) N/A (Proposal is for a detached accessory second unit.) (F) The total area of the detached accessory second unit will be 906-square-feet. The proposed 404-square-foot garage is not calculated as part of the unit. (G) Site plan and architectural review for the proposed detached accessory second dwelling unit has been provided by staff and shall be approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The unit will comply with all of the required RI development standards, as outlined in the table below: DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Height Lot Coverage Selbacks: Front ] 5 feet 26 feel Rear 20 feel 22 feel Sides 10 feet and 3 feel 5 feel and 4 feel' Parking One space Two garage spaces/one open 'Does nol meel required setback. However, Section 19.58.020 B.I. states that "a one-slory building may disregard any rear or side yard requiremenls iflocaled in the rear 30 percent of the lot, or back oflhe fronl70 feet oflhe 101." ALLOWED/REQUIRED 28 feet (2.5 slories) 40% PROPOSED 13 feet 33% (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 of this Conditional Use Permit; (I) Sewer service will be provided by the City of Chula Vista (not a private system), which means there is no requirement for local health official approval. A letter opposing the project (Attachment 3) was received from Bobby and Eamedell Deese, residents at 60 G Street, Chula Vista, who did not list any specific reasons or concerns. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory second unit behind a single-family residence at 736 Church Avenue, in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-13. Attachments I. Locator Map 2. Resolution PCC-02-02 3. Letter of opposition from residents at 60 G Street 4. Disclosure Statement -:::> ~ HENRY'S MARKET PLACE ALBERTSON'S MARKET US POST OFFICE PROJECT LOCATION C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPLlCAN'!: DANIEL CONTRERAS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT ADDRESS: 736 CHURCH AVENUE Request: Proposed 477 square feet addition of two FILE NUMBER: bedrooms to the existing 811 square feet two car SCALE: garage which was used as a workshop in the past. NORTH No Scale PCC-02-13 v C:IDAIFILESllocatorsIPCC0213.cdr 03/12/02 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-13 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-02-13, AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 736 CHURCH AVENUE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(l)(A)-(I). WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Division on September 18, 2001 by Daniel Contreras; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests an accessory second dwelling unit permit for an existing second unit, which will be remodeled and expanded to include: two bedrooms, one bathroom, dining room and living room, for a total of 906 square feet, in compliance with State Government Code Sections 65852.2(b)(I )(A)-(I), for cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances; 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 of limited 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 to be held at the time and place as advertised, namely November 28,2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Plauning Commission; and WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to March 27, 2002, and was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit 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 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. ~ ATTACHMENT 2 The requested use would take place within an eXlstmg single-family residential neighborhood. The state legislation declares that accessory second units are a valuable form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. The accessory second unit will be architecturally integrated in terms of design, building materials and colors used with the proposed primary single-family residence. In addition, it 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-02-13 requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit or occupancy of any facility on the site for the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the California Government Code relating to accessory second units as follows: (A) The unit is not intended for sale or may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family use. (C) The accessory second unit will be constructed on a lot that contains an existing single-family residence. (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 detached unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. (F) The request 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 request meets local building code requirements to detached dwellings, as appropriate. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. This Conditional Use Permit is in compliance with the General Plan. 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. (p WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13 subject to the following conditions, whereby the applicant and/or property owners shall: PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT I. The accessory second unit shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the conceptual plans dated February 26, 2002, including a site plan, floor plan, and exterior elevations. 2. Building permits will be required. Plans must comply with 1998 CBC, CPC, CEC, CMC and 200 I Energy Requirements. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the raised portion of the sidewalk (area marked in white) shall be removed and replaced. ENGINEERING DIVISION 4. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans submitted: sewer capacity fee based on all new construction or additional plumbing fixtures; and traffic signal fees based on the difference between the existing and proposed use. There may be requirements set at the time development takes place and/or a building permit is applied for, depending on final plans submitted for building permits. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $1.47 per square foot of assessable area to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. This fee is assessed for new residential construction and additions or remodels of over 500 square feet. OTHER CONDITIONS 6. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked, and the existence of this use permit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed unit, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document. 7. The accessory second unit shall not be connected to the existing sewer lateral, or the other existing utilities such as water, electricity, gas, cable, etc. from the main unit, utilizing the same address. 8. 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 '7 health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 9. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date ,hereof, 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. 10. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified conditional use permit. II. 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 retumed to the Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory second unit, a building permit shall be obtained for the rear property line fence. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative Date NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13 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 27th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: f ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary Kevin O'Neill, Chair Cf. .--'~--""" lJ'obb'j L, beese ta;-nede.l/ ])e.e.se. 00 G. Sfree.. f dJu/4Visfa) Cft 91910 Nove..m6er 19/ .2otJ( ,. i~ ('fi.; I':'D.-'-- -;,-,:~Il'C . , HOVlom PLANNING In re+eret1cG-. -h l!.a..se. # P~e. -(),2-/3 , h-e.ar; Ylg dale.- a.nd !-;'YY/ e. ;' tJ~ VUvJ ber :2J; 2cJcJI 0;00 p,rrJ, perm /+ -t-o r C{ . .1' ct t 73(., (!},uroh Av!:, We... 0 f. f os' e. +h e. second. dwel/r'nC) , Sf ncerely I 73~ ~ &aQ I! ~~ .))<?~~ . 10 - .._~.._..__..-..- ~'-"--------'-----'----"'--'------."", ." ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix B THE CITY 0, JHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~ IT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 1)0.1"\\ e.1 ~D,JreraS 1<0.1'\11"1"'0 ~o~reras S.sClheJ Qontr e Y'a5 2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. J N_A I 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. rJJA- / 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City stat!, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No A If yes, please indicate per~on(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. . N/It / 6. Hav,e you and/oryour officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a. Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No Ii.- If yes, state which Councilmember(s): . (NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGE Date: 9- /7- 01 ontractor/applicant .Vani 1::'-1 QoV\+rer-aS> - Print or type name of contractor/iilPplicant . Person is defined as: "An.v individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaterna/ organization, corpora/ion, estate, 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. " ATTACHMENT 4 .-.--..----..-.-......- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: 4- Meeting Date: 3/27/02 ITEM TITLED PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-02-16: Consideration of amendments to the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations Sections II.3.4.4, Property Development Standards, and II.3.3.5, Accessory Structures to change the RP-I and RP-2 required building setbacks and modify the allowabIe accessory structure width within the front setback.- The EastLake Company The applicant has submitted an application to amend Sections 11.3.4.4, Property Development Standards, and 11.3.3.5, Accessory Structures of the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations to change the RP-I and RP-2 (Residential Small Lot) required building setbacks from specific numerical setbacks to a variable setback controlled by Site Plan and Architectural review or Design Review approval. Thc application also requcsted a modification ofthe allowable accessory structure width within the front setback to exceed one third ofthe building width (current limitation) with Site Plan and Architectural or Design Review approval (see Attachment 2 and 3). The intent of these amcndmcnts is to provide City staff and applicant site design flexibility and achieve better small lot residential prodnct, consistcnt with the small lot rcsidential product presently being built in the EastLake Trails Neighborhood. The Environmcntal Rcview Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was previously covered under the EastLake III Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR #01-01). Thus, no fUliher environmcntal rcview is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution PCM-02-16 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION Existing Site Characteristics: The proposed amendments involve the entire the EastLake III SPA which is located near the eastern edge of the city'sjUlisdictional boundaries and consists of approximately 942 acres. EastLake III contains four distinct planning areas: 1) the Woods (East and West); 2) the Vistas; 3) the Olympic Training Center; and 4) "Panhandle" parcel located southerly of the OTC (see Locator). I Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 3/27/02 ANALYSIS The proposed PC District Regulations amendment for EastLake III is more specifically described in the following paragraphs: RP-l and RP-2 Development Standards Amendment: The amendments to Sections 11.3.4.4, Property Development Standards, consist of modifYing Table E, Propcrty Development Standards - RS & RP Group Residential Districts to change the required building setback for the RP-I and RP-2 land use districts from specific numcrical setback expressed in feet, to variable building setback controlled by site plan and architectural review under the Design Review Process ( see Attachment 2). For example, the Planned Community District Regulations for the EastLake Greens and EastLake Trails neighborhoods do not provide specific building setbacks for small lot product land use designation (lots less than 5,000 sq. ft.). Instead, a SP, Site Plan, designation in the property Development Standards allows the applicant or guest builder to establish property development standards in conjunction with the overall site design and architectural solution for the project. For example: the current rear setback for these two land uses is 15 ft. Under the SP designator, the building rear setbacks could vary from 12 to 20 ft. to allow for a staggered arrangement of buildings along the street ftontage. The SP, Site Plan review process has worked successfully in other EastLake small lot neighborhoods such as Trails North neighborhood TN-5("Sevilla"), because staff and applicant work together to arri ve at an acceptable site design solution and neighborhood character. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments for EastLake III to Section 11.3.4.4 will provide the necessary design flexibility to produce optimal site plan solution for each lot bascd on lot size and shape, location, etc., and more attractive street scenes. Accessory Structure Amendment: The amendments to Section 11.3.3 .5-C, Accessory Buildings and Uses, consists of modifYing the allowable accessory structures width within the front setback to exceed one third of the building width (current limitation) with Site Plan and Architectural or Design Review approval (see Attachment 3). The original intent was to prevent accessory structures, such as porches, to dominate the building design. However, applying specific limitations to architectural solutions has a potential to crcatc mcchanical and unbalanced architectural solutions. For this reason, staffsupports the proposed amendment, which basically allows the applicant the opportunity to exceed the one third limitation if is determined through the applicable Site Plan and Architectural Review or Design review Process that the additional width is necessary to improvc thc overall architectural composition and neighborhood character of the prohject. ~ Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 3/27/02 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, staff recommends approval of the amendments to the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations subject to the findings contained in the attached resolution. Attachments ] . Plmming Commission Resolution 2. Amendments to Sections 11.3.4.4, Property Development Standards (Strike - Out Underline) 3. Amendments to Section 1I.3.3.5-C, Accessory Buildings and Uses (Strike - Out Underline) 4. Disclosure Statement -3 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-02-16 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE III PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 11.3.4.4, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND 11.3.3.5, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO CHANGE THE RP-l AND RP-2 REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS AND MODIFY THE ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WIDTH WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK. WHEREAS, on January 4,2002, a duly verified application was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by The EastLake Company, requesting approval of amendments to Sections 11.3.4.4, Property Development Standards, and 11.3.3.5, Accessory Structures of the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations to change the RP-I and RP-2 required building setbacks from a specific numerical setback to a variable setback controlled by Site Plan and Architectural Review under the Design Review proccss. Applicant also requested approval to modify the allowable accessory structures width within the front setback to exceed one third of the building width with Site Plan and Architectural Review or Design Review approval (Project); and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented on Exhibit "A" and commonly known as EastLake III SPA, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 996 acres located at the eastern end of the City's jurisdictional boundaries( Project Site); and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has dctermined that the proposed project was previously covered under the EastLake III Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR#Ol-Ol), thus no further environmental review is necessary; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on March 27, 2002, as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCM-02-l6 herein, and recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Dircctor set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of gcneral circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was hcld at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 27,2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Ordinance approving the 'f Project in accordance with the findings contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 27th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kevin O'Neil, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary s- UPPER ("OWEn OTA.Y RESERVOII{ EXIIIBIT A &, -~ ~---,.._- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE III PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTIONS II.3.4.4, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND 11.3.3.5, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, TO CHANGE THE RP-I AND RP-2 REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS AND MODIFY THE ALLOW ABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WIDTH WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject matter of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as EastLake III SPA, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 996 acres located at the eastern end ofthe City's jurisdictional boundaries ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on January 4, 2002, a duly vcritied application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by The EastLake Company, requesting approval of amendments to the EastLake 111 Planned Community District Regulations Sections II.3.4.4, Property Development Standards, and 11.3.3.5, Accessory Structures to change the RP-I and RP-2 required building setbacks from a specific numerical setback to a variable setback controlled by Site Plan and Architectural review under the Design Review process. Also, the application requested a modification of the allowable accessory structures width within the front setback to exceed one third of the building width with Site Plan and Architectural Review or Design Review approval (Project); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements, including: I) a General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan and associated Design Guidelines, Public Facilities financing Plan and Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 2002-220 on July 17, 2001; and 2) Planned Community District Regulations approved by Ordinance No. 2839 on July 24,2001; and, D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined 7 that the proposed project was previously covered under the EastLake III Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSElR#OI-OI), thus no further environmental review is necessary; and, E. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 27, 2002, and after staff presentation and public testimony, voted (~to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and, F. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on _, 2002, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Planned Community District Regulations amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was givcn by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. __, 2002, in the Council Chambcrs, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS the Environmcntal Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has detennined that the proposed project was previously covered under the EastLake III Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR#OI-OI), thus no further environmental review is necessary; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, detenninc and ordain as follows: II PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidcncc introduccd bcfore the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on March 27, 2002, and the minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings. IlL CERTIFICA nON OF COMPLIANCE WITH CAQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for g compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was previously covered under the EastLake III Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR#OI-OI), thus no further environmental review is necessary; and, IV. FINDINGS FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and will provide the necessary design flexibility to produce optimal site plan solution for each lot based on lot size and shape, location, etc., and more attractive street scene; and that public necessity, convcnience, the general welfare and good zoning practice support the amendment. IV. APPROVAL Based on the abovc, the City Council hereby approves the proposed amendments to the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations as depicted in Exhibits "B" and "C," attached hereto. V. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforccability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Ordinance shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect_ab initio. VI EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building John Kaheny City Attorney ~ -"'~'--'-' -._----_...._--_.._.._----_._--_..,._.~.. . UPPER )<;ASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II PROJECT LOCATION - I.OWER OTAY RESERVOIR EXHIBIT A 10 RESJDENTlAL DlSTR1CTS Table E PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RS & RP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT RSI RS2 RPl RP2 l..ot Criteria: Minimum lot area (sauare feet) 6.000 5,000 4,200 3,150 Maximum lot cover3pe (%) 50 50 50 50 Minimum 101 devlh (feet) 100 100 90 70 Minimum lot width (feet): . -measured at propeny line. ) 60 50 42 45 - flag lot street frontage 20 20 SP SP -knuckJe or cul-de-sac street frontage 3 25 25 SP SP Yards and setbacks:* Minimum front yard setback: - to direct entry garage 20 20 t9YrSP t9Y2 S P -to side entry garage 15 15 t5-SP +5-SP -to main residence I') )') t5-SP t5-SP .t-.linimurn side yard setback (feet)!]: -10 adjacent Tesidentiallot ')/10 5/10 5ftB S P 5ftB SP -dislance between detached units 10 10 -HI SP -tB SP -to adiacent residential street (corner lot) 10 10 -HI SP -H1 SP Minimum fear yard setback (feet)u: 20 15 15 SP 15 SP Building ht'ight (stories/feet): -main building 2/28 2f28 2f28 2f28 -accessory building Ifl5 Ifl5 1115 1115 Parking: -minimum on-site spaces (minimum in garage) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) -minimum on-streel spaces I I I I -maximum driveway widlh at curb (feet) 24 24 165 16.5 r Side and re;n yard setbacks for accessory buildings (Refer 10 Seclion 11.3_3-5)_ ] The side y<mf st'lback lor an entry drive Irellis or portICo may be reduced by 50%. Subject to Variance approval. J. For cul-de.sacs ;md knuckles the 101 width shall be measured allhc front selback line. Addilional Notes- *Rcfer to Section IL:tJ4C for a1lo\\'::JbJe building area for each Land Use DiSlncl. *Rcfrr 10 Section JI.3.J.4F for special setbacks for Scemc Highways. EXHIBIT B fSIfW\tt-I(12!IOfOI) 113-17 PC D!STRICT REC;ULAfIONS II II.3.3.5Acccssory Buildings and Uses Refer to Exhibits PC-2a-k and PC-3 for Setbacks and standards for RLI District, Parcel WR-1. Accessory uses and accessory structures that are subordinate to and customarily appurtcnant to a permitted use are allowed in accordance with the Permitted Land Use Matrices herein. Accessory buildings and structures, attached or detachcd, used for living purposes, shall meet all of the requirements for location ofthe main structure as constructed orrequired by the district, whichever is less restrictive, except as herein providcd. A. Enclosed accessory buildings or opcn structures attachcd to the main building are subject to approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review. Such accessory buildings shall not be allowcd to cncroach into rcquired setbacks, unless permitted by special provisions herein. B. Detached accessory structures arc subject to the approval of Site Plan and Architectural Revicw and shall meet thc front yard setback rcquirements of the main building. Detached accessory structures may bc located within an interior side yard or rear yard, provided that such a structure is located no closer than live feet to an interior side or rcar lot line and is at least six feet from the main structure, and does not exceed onc story in height. C. Porcbes, steps and architectural fcaturcs such as, eves, awnings, chimneys, balconies, stairways, wing walls, or bay windows may not project more than four feet into any required front or rcar yard area, and not into any required side yard setback (provided &ide yard is 10' or greater) more than one-half of said setback. The width of a porch shall not exceed a distance equal to one-third of the building width, except as may be approved through the applicable Site Plan and Architectural Review or Design Revicw process. EXHIBIT C /d.- ATTACHMENT 2 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II.3.4.4 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS /3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Table E PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RS & RP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT RSI RS2 RPI RP2 Lot Criteria: Minimum lot area (souare feet) 6,000 5,000 4,200 3,150 Maximum lot coverage (%) 50 50 50 50 Minimum lot depth (feet) 100 100 90 70 Minimum lot width (feet): -measured at property line. 3 60 50 42 45 -flag lot street frontage 20 20 SP SP ~knuckJe or cul-de-sac street fronta2:e 3 25 25 SP SP Yards and setbacks:* Minimum front yard setback: ~to direct entry garage 20 20 +9'frSP t9'Iz SP -10 side entry garage 15 15 +5-SP t5-SP -to main residence 15 ]5 +5-SP +5-SP Minimum side yard setback (feel)l.2: -to adjacent residential lot 5110 5110 5fHj SP 5fHj SP -distance between detached units 10 10 -tB SP --tB SP -10 adjacent residential street (corner 101) 10 10 -tB SP --tB SP Minimum rear yard selback (feel)13: 20 15 15 SP 15 SP Building height (stories/feet): -main building 2/28 2/28 2/28 2/28 -accessory building ]115 1/15 1/15 1/15 Parking: -minimum on-site spaces (minimum in garJge) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) -minimum on~street spaces I ] I 1 -maximum driveway width al curb (feel) 24 24 16.5 16.5 I Side and rear yard setbacks for Jccessor)' buildings (Refer to Sertion 11.3.3-5). 2 The side yard setback for an entry drive trellis or ponico may be reduced by 50%_ Subject 10 Variance approval. "\ For cuI-dc-sacs and knuckles the 101 wIdth shall be measured al the front selback line. Additional Notes: *Rcfer to Section JI.3-3.4C for allow<Jbk building area for each Land Use District. *Refcr to Section 11.3.3.4F for ~reci31 sethacks for Scenic Highways. (~IO]/OI) (12/10/01) PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS 113-17 IY ATTACHMENT 3 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II.3.5-C ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES I~ II.3.3.5Accessory Buildings and Uses Refer to Exhibits PC-2a-k and PC-3 for Setbacks and standards for RLI District, Parcel WR-1. Accessory uses and accessory structures that are subordinate to and customarily appurtenant to a permitted use are allowed in accordance with the Permitted Land Use Matrices herein. Accessory buildings and structures, attached or detached, used for living purposes, shall meet all of the requirements for location ofthe main structure as constructed or required by the district, whichever is less restrictive, except as herein provided. A. Enclosed accessory buildings or open structures attached to the main building are subject to approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review. Such accessory buildings shall not be allowed to encroach into required setbacks, unless permitted by special provisions herein. B. Detached accessory structures are subject to the approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review and shall meet the ftont yard setback requirements ofthe main building. Detached accessory structures may be located within an interior side yard or rear yard, provided that such a structure is located no closer than five feet to an interior side or rear lot line and is at least six feet from the main structure, and does not exceed one story in height. C. Porches, stcps and architectural features such as, eves, awnings, chimneys, balconies, stairways, wing walls, or bay windows may not project more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not into any required side yard setback (provided gicle yard ig 10' or greater) more than one-half of said setback. The width of a porch shall not exceed a distance equal to one-third of the building width, except as may be approved through the applicable Site Plan and Architectural Review or Design Review process. /0 ATTACHMENT 4 OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE STATEMENT /7 Appendix B THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. TH-t:. EJ\STLA1L-IZ (j:; M~ It(IJ Y ::f.' (; .~\,JELL ~NO CD. 2. If any person- identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. s: b. 'Bcswe II 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. ~,LL OS Tll-CM --=:B4D (;,(1.11'1 G~ AsPl/lo 01:)11..'( Ci n r,' 1illJ fY\.. \L. '6 hi" 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No""""-- If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: "I- (NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS ~7 I).-ls-f)) X Signature of contractor/applicant Pri~r~nam~~e;c~Or/aPPlicant . Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm. co-partnership. joint venture, association, social club, frearernal organization, corporation, es/ale, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acling as a unit. " ! r