HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2003/06/11
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 11 , 2003, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CALL TO ORDER: Hall Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Hom Felber
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 14, 2003
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on
any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 01-02; Consideration of an amendment to the
Municipal Code (Title 19) to define and provide local
provisions for surface mining operations within the City of
Chula Vista.
Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-55; Conditional Use Permit to allow a second-
story addition, which includes an attic, to a single-family
dwelling that exceeds the allowed height limit in the R-1
Zone. The project site is located at 626 Second Avenue.
Applicant: Joseph Bustamante.
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2-
June 11, 2003
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 06/11/03
I
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Proposal to adopt Resolution No. PCA-OI-02
recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sections
19.04, 19.54, and adding Chapter 19.69 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
to define and provide local provisions for surface mining operations within
the City of Chula Vista. Applicant: City of Chula Vista.
The City ofChula Vista proposes to adopt local standards for surface mining operations in any zone
pursuant to the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA, Public
Resources Code!i!i 2710 et seq.).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that
the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section
1506I(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-OI-02
recommending City Council approve the proposed ordinance amendments to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code Sections 19.04 and 19.54 and adding Chapter 19.69.
DISCUSSION:
The State of California passed SMARA to ensure adverse environmental impacts caused by surface
mining activities are mitigated through prudent reclamation practices. SMARA requires all cities
having surface mines within their jurisdictions to adopt surface mining ordinances in accordance
with state policy that establishes procedures for the review and approval of reclamation plans,
financial assurances, and the issuance of permits to conduct surface mining operations. [PRC
92774(a)]
Currently, one surface mining operation, known as the Nelson & Sloan Otay Ranch Pit (CA Mine
ID#9I -37-0035), is operating within the City Of Chula Vista's jurisdiction. This operation was
previously permitted under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego and, upon annexation to
Chula Vista in 1996, came under the purview ofthe City. In 1998, the State Mining and Geology
Board (SMGB) informed the City that because of this existing operation, the City is required to
adopt a SMARA Mining Ordinance and have it certified by the SMGB, per PRC 92774. In the
interim, SMGB has served as the lead agency for the review and approval of reclamation plans and
financial assurances, including annual inspections for compliance with approved reclamation plans.
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/11/03
Upon certification ofthe City's ordinance, the City will become the lead agency with authority to
review and approve any amendments to the current reclamation plan for the Otay Ranch Pit and any
future applications for surface mining.
In summary these ordinance amendments will:
o Add a Chapter to Title 19 (Zoning) providing definitions for mining related terminology
and establishing a process for reviewing surface mining operations.
o Set standards for Reclamation of mined lands to ensure the lands are restored to a usable
condition and are readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the general
plan.
o Establish a process for reviewing and approving financial assurances which will ensure
reclamation is completed in accordance with approved Reclamation Plans.
o Establish a process for regular inspection of mined lands to ensure continuing compliance
with the Conditional Use Permit and the Reclamation Plan.
o Allow the City to become the lead agency for monitoring the existing surface mining
operation within the City boundary and to any future revisions to this operation or the
establishment of other future operations.
The proposed ordinance was prepared in conformance with guidelines provided by SMGB and
would be an implementation tool for the Conservation and Open Space Element ofthe General Plan.
This element recognizes that sand and rock deposits in the Otay Valley and Rock Mountain areas are
valuable resources that will be needed by the City and the region. The reclamation plan
requirements of the proposed ordinance will help meet the General Plan goal of allowing sand and
gravel extraction without compromising "future open space, natural preserve, agriculture and other
open space compatible uses of the Otay Valley."
The City Engineer, City Attorney and representatives of the local mining industry have reviewed the
draft ordinance. SMGB has also reviewed the draft ordinance and comments provided were
incorporated into the document.
CONCLUSION:
Staffbelieves that the proposed ordinance satisfies the requirements ofSMARA and establishes the
needed process for the review of any existing and future surface mining operations within the City.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCA-OI-02, recommending
that City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending Sections 19.04 and 19.54, and adding
Chapter 19.69, Surface Mining Operations, to the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Attachments:
I. Planning Commission Resolution with Draft Ordinance Attached
~
J:\Planning\DAWN\CaseFiles\pc reports&resos\PCA-01-02 Agenda Statement (mining) DOC
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-OI-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04 AND 19.54; AND ADDING
CHAPTER 19.69 TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE
AND PROVIDE LOCAL PROVISIONS FOR SURFACE MINING
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
WHEREAS, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public Resources
Code Section 2710 et seq.) requires every lead agency to adopt ordinances in accordance
with State Policy that establish procedures for the review and approval of reclamation plans,
financial assurances, and the issuance of a permit to conduct surface mining operations
within the lead agency's jurisdiction and the City is therefore obligated to adopt a local
SMARA ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the State Mining and Geology Board has informed the City of Chula
Vista that the Nelson & Sloan Otay Ranch Pit (CA Mine ID#91-37-0035) is operating within
the City's jurisdiction; and,
WHEREAS, to date the City ofChula Vista has not adopted local standards and the
State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) has served as the interim lead agency for the
approval of any reclamation plans and financial assurances submitted by mine operators until
the City Of Chula Vista obtains a SMGB certified mining ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 1506 I (b )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the
activity is not subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
ordinance amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to the
hearing, and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June
I I, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Plarming
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS
PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the
City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sections 19.04 and 19.54; and adding Chapter
19.69 to the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to define and provide
local provisions for surface mining operations within the City of Chula Vista, as shown in
Attachment '"A."
3
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of June, 2003, by the following vote, to-
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Russ Hall, Chair
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Plarming Commission
J :\Planning\DA WN\CaseFiles\pc reports&resos\pca-O 1-02 reso.doc
<i
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04 AND 19.54 AND ADDING CHAPTER 19.69
TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE
LOCAL PROVISIONS FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS WITHIN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public Resources Code
Sections 2710 et seq.) declares that the extraction of minerals is essential to the continued
economic well-being of the state and to the needs of society, and the reclamation of mined lands
is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse effects on the environment and to protect the public
health and safety; and
WHEREAS, SMARA requires every lead agency to adopt ordinances in accordance with
state policy which establishes procedures for the review and approval of reclamation plans and
financial assurances and the issuance of a permit to conduct surface mining operations; and
WHEREAS, it is an objective of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City's
General Plan to protect and manage sand and gravel resources for the benefit of the general
public; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, pursuant to Section 1506 I (b )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to amend Title 19 (Zoning) of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) to provide specific regulations to review plans and issue permits for
surface mining operations a within any zones of Title 19 (Zoning) of the CVMC; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 1 I,
2003 and has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed
amendments and additions to the CVMC.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain:
SECTION 1. That Section 19.04.291 is added to Chapter 19.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code as follows:
Section 19.04.291 Surface Minin2 Operations
"Surface Minin2 Operations" means all, or part of, the process involved in the
minin2 of minerals on mined lands, as defined in CVMC 19.69, by removin2 overburden
and minin2 directly from the mineral deposits, open-pit minin2 of minerals naturally
exposed, minin2 by the aU2er method, dred2in2 and quarryin2, or surface work incident to
~
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance
Page 2
an underground mine. Surface mining operations include, but are not limited to, inpIace
distillation or retorting or leaching, the production and disposal of mining waste,
prospecting and exploratory activities, borrow pitting, streambed skimming, and
segregation and stockpiling of mined materials (and recovery of same).
SECTION II. That Chapter 19.54 (Unclassified Uses) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Section 19.54.020 -Unclassified Uses
A. Borrow pits and quarries for rOc!l, sand and gravel; Surface Mining
Operations: See Section 19.69
SECTION III. That Chapter 19.69 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby added to read
as follows:
Chapter 19.69
SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS
Sections:
19.69.010
19.69.020
19.69.030
19.69.040
19.69.050
19.69.060
Process
19.69.070
19.69.080
19.69.090
19.69.100
19.69.11 0
19.69.120
19.69.130
19.09.010
Purpose and Intent
Scope
Definitions
Vested Rights
Incorporation by Reference
Conditional Use Permit, Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance
Standards for Reclamation
Findings for Approval
Financial Assurances for Reclamation
General Provisions
Modification to Approved Surface Mining Operation
Inspection, Reporting and Violations
Idle Mining Operations
Purpose and Intent
(p
Ordinance
Page 3
The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to ensure the continued availability of important
mineral resources, while regulating surface mining operations as required by California's Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Public Resources Code Sections 2710 et seq.), as
amended, hereinafter referred to as "SMARA", Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2207
(relating to annual reporting requirements), and State Mining and Geology Board regulations
(hereinafter referred to as "State regulations") for surface mining and reclanlation practice to
ensure that:
(a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are
reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses.
(b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving consideration
to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic
enjoyment.
(c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated.
19.69.020
Scope.
Except as provided in this Chapter, no person shall conduct Surface Mining Operations, as
defined in 19.04.291, unless the City has first approved a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
Section 19.14.060 through 19.14.130, a Reclamation Plan, and financial assurances for
reclamation.
Activities not subject to these regulations are those listed in the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (PRC*2714). Any applicable exemption from these requirements does
not automatically exempt a project or activity from the application of other regulations,
ordinances or policies of the City, including but not limited to, the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the requirement of Building Permits, the payment of development impact
fees, or the imposition of other dedications and exactions as may be permitted under the law.
19.69.030
Definitions.
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this chapter:
Borrow Pits: Excavations created by the surface mining of rock, geologic deposits or soil to
provide material (borrow) for use elsewhere.
Mined Lands: The surface, subsurface, and ground water of an area in which surface mining
operations will be, are being, or have been conducted, including private ways and roads
appm1enant to any such area, land excavations, workings, mining waste, and areas in which
structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials or property which result
from, or are used in, surface mining operations are located.
7
Ordinance
Page 4
Operator: Any person or business entity who is engaged in surface mining operations, or who
contracts with others to conduct operations on his/her behalf, except a person who is engaged in
surface mining operations as an employee with wages as his/her sole compensation.
Reclamation: The combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air
pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion, and other adverse effects from
surface mining operations, including adverse surface effects incidental to underground mines, so
that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternate land
uses and create no danger to public health or safety. The process may extend to affected lands
surrounding mined lands, and may require backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegetation, soil
compaction, stabilization, or other measures.
Idle Mining Operations: To curtail a surface mining operation for a period of one year or more
by more than 90 percent of the operation's previous maximum annual mineral production, with
the intent to resume those surface mining operations at a future date.
19.69,040
Vested Rights
No person who obtained a vested right to conduct Surface Mining Operations in
accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) shall be
required to secure a Conditional Use Permit to mine pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter
provided that no change or expansion of use has occurred beyond those vested rights.
19.69.050
Incorporation by Reference
The provisions of SMARA (PRC 92710 et seq.), PRC 92207, State regulations CCR
93500 et seq. and CCR93700 et seq., as those provisions and regulations may be amended from
time to time, are made a part of this Chapter by reference with the same force and effect as if the
provisions therein were specifically and fully set out herein, excepting that when the provisions
of this Chapter are more restrictive than correlative State provisions, this Chapter shall prevail.
19.69.060
Conditional Use Permit, Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance Process
a) Conditional Use Permits.
i) All applications for a Conditional Use Permit for surface mllllllg shall be made,
considered and granted or denied pursuant to Section 19.14.060 through 19.14.130,
19.54.010 and shall be accompanied by an application for a Reclamation Plan, and
Financial Assurances in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Chapter and
as further required by SMARA and State regulations.
ii) Within thirty (30) days of acceptance of an application for a Conditional Use Permit
for surface mining operations as complete, the City shall notify the State Department
of Conservation of the filing of the application.
~
Ordinance
Page 5
b) Reclamation Plans and Financial Assurances.
i) All Reclamation Plans shall include all elements required by and comply with the
provisions ofSMARA(~~2772-2773), State regulations (CCR ~~3500-3505), and any
additional information necessary to evaluate the proposed plan. All engineering plans
and geological analyses shall be approved and signed by a civil engineer and a
geologist, respectively, both of which are licensed to practice in the State of
California.
ii) Prior to final approval of a Reclamation Plan or financial assurances, the City shall
certify to the State Department of Conservation that the Reclamation Plan and/or
financial assurance complies with the applicable requirements of State law, and
submit the plan and/or assurance to the State Department of Conservation for review,
Pursuant to PRq2774(d). The City shall evaluate written comments received, if any,
from the State Department of Conservation. Staff shall prepare a written response
describing the disposition of the major issues raised by the state for the City Council's
approval.
19.69.070
Standards for Reclamation
a) All Reclamation Plans shall comply with the provisions of SMARA (~2772 and ~2773)
and State regulations (CCR ~3500-3505). All new Reclamation Plans, and any existing
Reclamation Plans for which a modification is proposed, shall also comply with the
requirements for reclamation performance standards in CCR~3700 et seq., as may be
modified from time to time.
b) The City may impose additional performance standards as developed either in review of
individual projects, as warranted, or through the formulation and adoption of citywide
performance standards.
c) Reclamation activities shall be initiated at the earliest possible time on those portions of
the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance. Interim reclamation may
also be required for mined lands that have been disturbed and that may be disturbed
again in future operations. Reclamation may be done on an annual basis, in stages
compatible with continuing operations or on completion of all excavation, removal, or
fill, as approved by the City. Each phase of reclamation shall be specifically described
in the Reclamation Plan and shall include (i) the beginning and expected ending dates
for each phase; (ii) all reclamation activities required; (iii) criteria for measuring
completion of specific reclanlation activities; and, (iv) estimated costs for completion of
each phase of reclamation.
cr
Ordinance
Page 6
19.69.080
Findings for Approval
a) Conditional Use Permit Approvals. In addition to the findings required by Section
19.14.080, Conditional Use Permit approvals for surface mining operations shall include
a finding that the project complies with the provisions of SMARA and State regulations.
b) Reclamation Plan Approvals. In addition to the findings required by the City for the
conditional use permit, approvals for Reclamation Plans for surface mining operations
shall include the following findings:
(I) That the Reclamation Plan complies with SMARA 92772 and 92773, and any
other applicable provisions, and with applicable requirements of State regulations
(CCR 993500-3505, and 993700-3713).
(2) That the Reclamation Plan and potential use of reclaimed land pursuant to the
plan are consistent with this Chapter, the City's General Plan and any applicable
resource plan or element.
(3) That the Reclamation Plan has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and the City's
environmental review guidelines, and all significant adverse impacts from
reclamation of the surface mining operations are mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible as determined the CEQA document either through adoption of mitigation
measures or a statement of overriding considerations.
(4) That the land and/or resources to be reclaimed will be restored to a condition that
is compatible with, and blends in with, the existing surrounding natural
environment, topography, and other resources. If the City determines that on-site
restoration is not feasible, suitable off-site lands may be set aside to compensate
for related disturbance to resource values.
(5) That the Reclamation Plan will restore the mined lands to a usable condition that
is readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the General Plan and
MSCP.
(6) That a written response to the State Department of Conservation has been
prepared, describing the disposition of major issues raised by that Department.
Where the City's position is at variance with the recommendations and objections
raised by the State, said response shall address, in detail, why specific comments
and suggestions were not accepted.
19.69.090
Financial Assurances for Reclamation
a) Financial assurances shall be required to ensure compliance with elements of the
Reclamation Plan, including but not limited to, revegetation and landscaping
req uirements, restoration of aquatic or wildlife habitat, restoration of water bodies and
water quality, slope stability and erosion and drainage control, disposal of hazardous
materials, and other measures, if necessary.
b) Cost estimates for the financial assurance shall be submitted to the Plmming Department
for review and approval prior to the Operator securing financial assurances. The amount
ID
Ordinance
Page 7
of the financial assurance shall be based upon the estimated costs of reclamation for the
years or phases stipulated in the approved Reclamation Plan.
c) In projecting the costs of financial assurances, it shall be assumed without prejudice or
insinuation that the surface mining operation could be abandoned by the Operator and,
consequently, the City may need to contract with a third party commercial company for
reclamation of the site.
d) Financial Assurances shall be in a form and an amount satisfactory to the City Attorney
and City Risk Manager and may include the following:
i) Surety bond issued by a California admitted surety insurer;
ii) Irrevocable letter of credit.
e) Revisions to financial assurances shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Building each year prior to the anniversary date for approval of the financial assurances.
The financial assurance shall cover the cost of existing disturbance and anticipated
activities for the next calendar year, including any required interim reclamation. If
revisions to the financial assurances are not required, the Operator shall explain, in
writing, why revisions are not required.
f) The financial assurances shall remain in effect and shall be released when the City
determines that reclamation has been completed in accordance with the approved
Reclamation Plan. If a mining operation is sold or ownership is transferred to another
person, the existing financial assurances shall remain in full force and effect and shall be
released by the City upon receipt of financial assurances from the new owner in a form
and an amount satisfactory to the City Attorney and Risk Manager.
19.69.100
General Provisions
a) Whenever any uncompleted surface mining operation or portion of an operation that is
subject to this Chapter is sold, assigned, conveyed, exchanged, or otherwise transferred,
the successor in interest shall be bound by the provisions of the Reclamation Plan
required by this Chapter.
b) Nothing in this ordinance shall exempt the Operator from complying with the
regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board, as well as the City of Chula Vista Grading and Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinances.
c) All mining and other related mining activities shall be consistent with the objectives,
guidelines, and recommendations in the City's General Plan, the California Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, and Air Pollution Control District
regulations as each may be amended from time to time.
d) All mining and other related mining activities must be consistent with Article 77 of
Uniform Fire Code and all blasting activities are subject to any and all permits required
by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
/1
Ordinance
Page 8
19.69.110
Modification to Approved Surface Mining Operation
An approved Conditional Use Permit, Reclamation Plan, or any conditions thereof, may be
revised or modified in the same manner as provided for a new application, including the
requirement for environmental impact review.
19.69.120
Inspection, Reporting and Violations
a) Surface mining operators shall forward an annual surface mining report to the State
Department of Conservation and to the City. New mining operations shall file an initial
surface mining report with the State Department of Conservation within 30 days of
permit approval, or before commencement of operations, whichever is sooner.
b) A schedule of periodic inspections by the City of the site shall be established to evaluate
continuing compliance with the Conditional Use Permit and the Reclamation Plan. The
inspections shall occur no less frequently than annually and within six months of receipt
fo the annual report.
c) The Operator shall provide to the Director of Engineering by each July 1, aerial
photographs of the mining site taken in the same month of the second quarter of each
year. The aerial photographs shall consist of:
i) Defined, marked and permanent ground controls; and
ii) Planimetric map of the mining site based on the aerial models with 5' contours and
drawn to 1 "=200' scale.
Upon the request of an Operator, the Director of Engineering may waive the requirement
for the aerial photographs on a case by case basis, such as when no excavation has been
accomplished since the last inspection, or may adjust the quarter of each year in which
the aerial photographs are taken.
d) If the City finds the Operator is not in compliance with the provisions of the Conditional
Use Permit, Reclamation Plan and/or the provisions of this Chapter, the subject violations
will be handled in conformance with PRC~2774.1 and 92774.2, as well as the provisions
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code concerning violations and penalties.
e) Each Operator shall pay an annual inspection deposit to the City by July I of each year
unless otherwise stated in an approved Reclamation Plan.
19.69.130
Idle Mining Operations
a) Within 90 days of a surface mining operation becoming idle, the Operator shall submit to
the City a proposed Interim Management Plan (IMP). The proposed IMP shall provide
measures the Operator will implement to maintain the site in a stable condition, taking
into consideration public health and safety. The proposed IMP shall be submitted on
/~
Ordinance
Page 9
forms provided by the City, and shall be processed as an amendment to the Reclamation
Plan.
b) The IMP may remain in effect for a period not to exceed five years, at which time the
City may renew the IMP for another period not to exceed five years, or require the
Operator to commence reclamation in accordance with its approved Reclamation Plan.
c) Financial assurances for idle operations shall be maintained as though the operation were
active.
SECTION VII. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and
after its adoption.
Submitted by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this ~ day of ,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Steve Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
/3
Ordinance
Page 10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. _ had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the _day of June, 2003
and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _
day of June, 2003.
Executed this _ day of _ 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
J:IPLANNINGIDA WNICASEFILESlcc REPORTS & REsosIPCA-OI-02 SMARA ORDINANCE. DOC
If
~I rt..
---
~:~
QTYOF
CHULA VISTA
I ,
~II j
I J L--
Dcpart:1Dcnt: of Planning and Building
Date:
June 5, 2003
To:
Planning Commissioners
From:
Michael W. Walker, Associate Planner
Subject:
PCC-03-55 (626 Second Avenue)
On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission heard application PCC-03-55. a conditional use pemlit
to exceed the height limit. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission voted to continue
the application and requested that staff inventory the number of non-historic dwellings that exceed
the 28-foot height limit. Staff researched building records for dwellings on the 600-block and found
only one dwelling that was 32 feet in height. The Commissioners also requested information
regarding the findings needed for approval of a conditional use permit vs. a variance (the applicable
code sections are attached.) The house is located at 61 I Second Avenue.
Staff met with the applicant's representative on June 3" to discuss alternative designs that would
either reduce the need for the CUP in its entirety or minimize the scale of the request. The applicant
has bee able to reduce the height of the dwelling from the original request of 34 feet to 32 feet. The
32 feet is the front portion of the roof. The remaining portion of the roof to the rear is at 30 feet.
The applicant's representative has provided revised plans that illustrate the height reduction and is
prepared to explain why a fmiher reduction is not possible without eliminating the peaked roof
architectural element. An illustration showing the height change is attached.
The staff report dated May 28, 2003, stated that the application was initially submitted as an
administrative conditional use permit (CUP). Due to the amount of public concern staff elevated the
issue to the Planning Commission. Staff has supported the request based on the existence of other
tall dwellings in the area and the zoning ordinance section, which states that the height can be
increased with a CUP. Staff is uncertain how the Planning Commission will vote. Therefore, both a
Draft Resolution for Approval and Denial has been prepared.
(
ChuIa Vista Municipal Code..
19.14.110
----
matter to be set for hearing in the same manner as
required for setting zoning matters for hearing. The
director of planning or the planning commission
shall have the discretion to include in the notice of
the hearing on such application notice that the
planning commission will consider classifications
of other than that for which application is made
and/or additional properties and/or uses.
In those cases where the application confonns to
the requirements of CYMC 19.14.030(A), the ap-
plication shall be directed to the zoning administra-
tor.
B. In the case of hazardous waste facilities as
def'medin CYMC 19.04.107, applications for con-
ditional use permits or modifications thereto shall
be made pursuant to CYMC 19.58.178, and shall
be considered by the planning commission with a
recommendation to be forwarded to the city coun-
cil for final review and action. The requirements of
CYMC 19.14.090 shall apply to both the planning
commission recommendation and the city council
resolution, with the following modifications:
1. The written findings, in addition to the
requirements of CYMC 19.14.080, shall address
those matters as set forth in CYMC 19.58.178(K).
2. The decision of the planning commission
shall constitute a recommendation only, and shall
not become flnal or subject to appeal as provided in
CYMC 19.14.100 to 19.14.130.
3. The city council's decision shall be con-
sidered final, and the city clerk shall transmit a
copy of the resolution as provided by CYMC
19.14.130. (Ord. 2542 ~ 2, 1993; Old. 2011 ~ 1,
1982; Old. 1813 ~ I, 1978; Ord. 1371 ~ I, 1971;
Old. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1304).
19.14.080 Conditional use permit -
Prerequisites for granting.
After the public hearing, the planning commis-
sion or the zoning administrator may, by resolu-
tion, grant a conditional use permit if the planning
commission or the zoning administrator finds from
the evidence presented at said hearing that all of the
following facts exist:
A. That the proposed use at the particular loca-
tion is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well-
being of the neighborhood or the community;
B. That such use will not, under the circum-
stances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare of persons resid-
ing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to prop-
erty or improvements in the vicinity;
~
19-43
C. That the proposed use will comply with the
regulations and conditions specified in this title for
such use;
D. That the granting of this conditional use will
not adversely affect the general plan of the city or
the adopted plan of any governmental agency;
E. That the proposed conditional use, if located .
in the coastal zone, is consistent with the certified
local coastal program and is consistent with the
intent of the zoJIing district. (Res. 11903, 1985;
Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1305(A)).
Conditional use permit - Public
hearing procedure - Finding of
facts.
The planning commission or the zoning admin-
istrator shall make a written finding which shall
specify acts relied upon in rendering said decision
and attaching such conditions and safeguards as
deemed necessary and desirable, not more than 10
days following the decision of the commission or
the zoning administrator, and shall fully set forth
wherein the facts and circumstances fulfill or fail to
fulfill the requirements of this section and CYMC
19.14.080. A copy of this written f'mding of facts
shall be filed with the city clerk, with the director
of planning and building, and mailed to the appli-
cant. The decision of the planning commission or
zoning administrator shall be f'maI on the eleventh
day following its filing in the office of the city
clerk, except where appeal is taken as provided
herein. (Ord. 2790, 1999; Old. 2374 ~ 2, 1990;
Ord. 1212 ~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1305(B)).
19.14.100 Conditional use pennit - Appeals-
Procedure generally.
The applicant or other interested persons may
appeal the decision of the zoning administrator to
the planning commission within 10 days after the
decision is filed with the city clerk, and the hearing
on said appeal shall be processed by the planning
commission in the same manner as a conditional
use permit within the original jurisdiction of the
planning commission. The applicant or other inter-
ested persons shall have the same right of appeal
from any determination of the planning commis-
sion in such instances as set forth in CYMC
19.14.110 through 19.14.130. (Ord. 1212 ~ I,
1969; prior code ~ 33.1305(C)).
19.14.110 Conditional use permit - Appeals-
Fonn - Contents - Effect of riling.
The applicant or other interested person may
appeal from the decision of the planning commis-
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
19.14.220
at the option of the zoning administrator or com-
mission, as the case may be, by mail to owners of
record of surrounding property within 300 feet of
the property for which said variance is requested.
The zoning administrator or the planning commis-
sion shall have the discretion to include in notice of
hearing on such application notice that the planning
commission will consider classification of other
than that for which application is made and/or addi-
tional properties and/or uses. Failure of owners to
receive notice of hearing shall in no way affect the
validity of action taken. (Ord. 2374 ~ 2, 1990; Ord.
1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1308(D)).
9.14.190 Variance - Prerequisites for
granting.
The zoning administrator shall grant a variance
only when the following facts are found:
A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and
not created by any act of the owner exists. Said
hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner
consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in
this context, personal, family or fmancial difficul-
ties; loss of prospective profits: and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
Further, a previous variance can never have set a
precedent, for each case must be considered only
on its individual merits;
B. That such variance is necessary for the pres-
ervation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a
variance, if granted. would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neigh-
bors;
C. That the authorizing of such variance will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent prop-
erty, and will not materially imparr the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest;
D. That the authorizing of such variance will
not adversely affect the general plan of the city or
the adopted plan of any governmental agency;
E. That in the coastal zone, granting of vari-
ances is consistent with and implements the certi-
fied local coastal program, and that the granting of
such variances does not reduce or in any way
adversely affect the requirements to protect coastal
resources as specified in the zones induded in this
title, and that the variance implements the purposes
of the zones adopted in implementation of the local
coastal program.
The director of planning and building or plan-
ning commission may grant a variance to a regula-
-.3
tion prescribed by this title only with respect to
fences, walls, hedges. screening, or landscaping;
site area, width, frontage or depth: front, rear, or
side yards; basic floor area: height of structures; or
distances between structures, courts or usable open
space as the variance was applied for, or in modi-
fied fonn, if, on the basis of the application and the
evidence submitted, the director of planning and
building makes the following findings of fact that
establish that the Circumstances prescribed in sub-
sections (A) through (C) of this section apply:
I. Because of special circumstances applica-
ble to the property, including size, shape, topogra-
phy, location, or surroundings, the strict application
of the title deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the same land
use classification in the coastal zone;
2. That the strict application of the specified
provision would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other property classified
in the same use classification in the coastal zone;
and
3. That the granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the same
use classification in the coastal zone. (Ord. 2790,
1999; Res. 11903, 1985; Ord. 1212 ~ 1,1969; prior
code ~ 33.1308 (E)).
19.14.200 Variance - Grounds for denial-
Recurrent conditions.
No grant of a variance shall be authorized if the
zoning administrator finds that the condition or sit-
uation of the specific piece of property, or the
intended use of said property for which variance is
sought, or one or the other in combination, is so
general or recurrent in nature as to make reason-
ably practicable the fonnulation of a general regu-
lation for such condition or situation. (Ord. 1212
~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1308(F)).
19.14.210 Variance - Zoning administrator
authority - Notice of action.
The zoning administrator may approve said
variance or may grant said variance subject to
specified conditions or may deny said variance.
The zoning administrator shall notify the applicant
forthwith of action taken. (Ord. 2374 ~ 2, 1990;
Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.1308(G)).
19.14.220 Variance - Prerequisite to issuance
of zoning permit.
Following the issuance of a variance by the zon-
ing administrator, the building inspector shall issue
19-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
---
Total roof area = 2201 Sq. Ft
Area over height = 444 Sq. Ft.
ROOF PLAN
NOTE:
51i\1?W N!!iA WrAre5 pmnJ
{iF ROOF \WICK ~XCf'WS 28'
I::fIUHrUMtf
SCAlE, 1/4' = j'''''
Ratio for variance = 20 'fJ
'I
JUN 5 ?DD3
~
c:
z
".
~
co
.~
1___-,'-'-'.--'
':\
Ii
I'
,',
21Jt
\-"
7-
Sf
"
\''::'
~
8'_(111
"':-''l'-()I\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'7J'AI\
J
6
--'>
~-.;:.;
:,:\ \1
~'~.\ \~
~ ;'
"I I~
-;\
--~,
'.5'1
B'-I\l"
'2
8'-0"
~
6
0\
2B'-CJ"
c;
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
tI'_(JI'
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 03-55
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-03-55 FOR ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING INCLUDING A SECOND-STORY ADDITION
THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE R-l ZONE
LOCATED AT 626 SECOND AVENUE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 14, 2003, by Joseph Bustamante
"Applicant'"; and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests a conditional use permit for additions to a singIe-
family dwelling including a second-story addition that exceeds the 28-foot height limit for the R-
1 zone located at 626 Second Avenue. The second-story addition includes: three bedrooms, two
baths and a study; and
WHEREAS. the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3 categorical
exemption from environmental review CEQA Section 15303, 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 held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 28,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. at Joseph Casillas Elementary School, 1130 East J Street, ChuIa Vista, 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 6-0-1 to continue the conditional use permit to allow staff time to perform additional
research on the height of other houses in the immediate area that are not historically designated;
and
WHEREAS, staff did not find other non-historic houses in the immediate area that
exceed the 28-foot height limit by which the project can be compared to; and
WHEREAS, the second hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
June 11,2003, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission; and
o
.
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 deny the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
following findings required by the City's rules and regulations fpr the denial of Conditional Use
Permit application PCC-03-55, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the
evidentiary basis that permits the stated findings to be made.
I. That the proposed use at this location is uot uecessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility, aud will not contribute to tbe general welI being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The existing dwelling has a 50-foot front setback. The front addition will bring the
dwelling to a 40-foot front setback. The second-story and front additions will result in a
bulky 3,942 square foot, 34-foot dwe1ling that will be the only large dwelling close to the
street. This is not a desirable location for a dwelling of this size in comparison to the
other large homes on the same street, which are set well back from the street. Therefore,
the proposed project would not be compatible with the other residential uses, thus
impacting the general well being ofthe neighborhood.
2. That such use will under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or genel'al welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
Based upon public testimony, it is apparent that the proposed height would not be
compatible within the context of the neighborhood, thereby impacting the neighborhood.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use,
The proposed project complies with all codes and regulations for the Single-Family
Residence (R - I ) zoning district.
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 project would not adversely affect the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance land use
designations because the property is zoned R-l, which allows the height to be exceeded
with a conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
deny Conditional Use Permit PCC-03-55 in accordance with the findings contained in this
resolution.
1
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11 th day of June, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Russ HaJl, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J'\Planning\Michael\Pcc Reports\Pcc-03-55
g
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: OS/28/2003
6"
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-03-55, proposal to allow a
second-story addition, which includes an attic, to a single-family dwelling
that exceeds the allowed height limit in the R-I zone. The project site is
located at 626 Second Avenue. The applicant is Joseph Bustamante.
The applicant proposes first and second story additions totaling 2,4 I 3 square feet of floor area to an
existing 1,079 square foot single-family dwelling. The second story addition will exceed the 28- foot
height limit in the R-1 zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review CEQA Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC -
03-55 based on the findings and conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
I. Background
The project site is located within the 600 block of Second Avenue. The block is developed with a
range between single-story and three-story single-family homes; some of which are hisJ:orically
designated and listed on the City's Registry of Historical Homes. The proposed project requires a
conditional use permit because a portion of the project will exceed the allowable 28-foot height limit
requirement in the R-l zone. Section 19.24.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) allows
an increase to the height limit with the approval of a conditional use permit.
The project would typically be an administrative conditional use permit considered by the Zoning
Administrator. However, the Zoning Administrator referred the project to the Planning Commission
because neighbors submitted a petition opposing the project's height (Attachment 3). The neighbors
believe that the project will be out of scale and character with the neighborhood. However, the
applicant is adamant about developing his house and property in the marmer proposed. The applicant
submitted a petition from neighbors supporting the project with his application. Additionally, staff
had recently received letters from neighbors who support the project (Attachment 4). Since it
appears that any decision by the Zoning Administrator would be appealed, it is appropriate to place
the matter directly before the Planning Commission.
/
9
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/28/03
2. Site Characteristics
The property is 17,488 square-feet in size, narrow and deep, and contains a 1,079 square-foot single-
story, single-family dwelling and an 800 square foot detached garage. The uses adjacent to the
property include single-family dwellings in all directions.
3. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Zoning
R-l
R-I
R-I
R-l
R-I
Current Land Use
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
4. Proposal
The proposed project is 2,413 square feet of first and second-story additions to the existing dwelling
that will result in a total livable floor area 4,292 square feet.
5. Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
Height
Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Front 25 feet 40 feet
Rear 20 feet 184 feet
Sides 10 feet each side 12 feet and 12.6 feet
Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 45 percent 25 percent
'Section 19.24.060 states that the height can be increased with a conditional use pennit.
ALLOWEDIREQUIRED
28 feet (2.5 stories)
40 percent
PROPOSED
34 feet'
1 5 percent
ANALYSIS:
The property is located in the R -1 zone. The existing dwelling is adj acent to single-story dwellings
on each side. The proposed additions on the first floor are to the front and rear of the dwelling and
will maintain the existing 12 and I2.5-foot side yard setbacks. The second floor addition will
include an attic that the applicant will use as a hobby room. This will result in a 34-foot tall (3-story)
dwelling that exceeds the 28-foot height limit for the R-l zone. With the exception of the requested
height increase, the project meets all the other development standards for the R-l zone.
Staff surveyed the 600-bIock and identified a housing stock that ranges between single-story and
three-story dwellings with varying architectural styles. Three of the houses on the block appear to
exceed the height limit (Attachment 5). Staff believes that the proposed project is not out of
character, and will not be a detriment to the neighborhood because there are other two and three-
-2
;0
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/28/03
story houses on the block. Furthennore, the proposal to build up rather than outward on the
narrow lot will preserve the large yard area, which is consistent with other properties on the
block.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project has both supporters and opponents. After an analysis and field survey, staff
concludes that the project will not be out of character within the context ofthe other houses in the
neighborhood regarding height, and that the property is consistent with other properties on the block
with the intent to preserve the large open space area. The project meets all the development
standards of the R-l zone with the exception of the height. However, approval ofthis conditional
use permit will allow the project to meet the R-I zone development requirements therefore; staff
recommends approval of the application request to exceed the height limit in accordance with the
findings and conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-03-55.
ATTACHMENTS:
I . Locator Map
2. Resolut;on PCC-03-55
3. Petition/Opposition Letters
4. PetitionlSupport Letters
5. Aerial Photo of the 600 Block
J:\Planning\Michael\PCC Reports\PCC-03-55
3
II
A TT ACHMENT 1
Q
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: JOSEPH BUSTAMANTE CO/JDrTlot-JAL.. U:se. PE~lr
~g~~~~: 626 SECOND AVENUE Request: Proposal for a variance on a residential
additions that would exceed the current height
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: limitation on 28' feet.
NORTH No Scale ZAV-03-08
j:\home\ lannin \cherrylc\locatorslzav0308.cdr 01.22.03 "
p 9
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 03-55
RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT;
PCC-03-55 FOR ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING INCLUDING A SECOND-STORY ADDITION
THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE R-I ZONE
LOCA TED AT 626 SECOND AVENUE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City of ChuIa Vista Plarming Department on January 14, 2003, by Joseph Bustamante
"Applicant"; and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests a conditional use permit for additions to a singIe-
family dwelling including a second-story addition that exceeds the 28-foot height limit for the R-
1 zone located at 626 Second Avenue. The second-story addition includes: three bedrooms, two
baths and a study; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3 categorical
exemption from environmental review CEQA Section 15303, 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 held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 28,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. at Joseph CasilJas Elementary School, 1130 East J Street, ChuJa Vista, before
the PI arming 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 Plarming 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.
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
~
(5
The proposed additions to the existing single-family dwelling include a second-story
addition that will result in a 34-foot tall dwelling. The proposed height exceeds the 28-
foot height limit established for the R-1 zone. Section 19.24.060 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code state that the building height of the main dwelling can be increased with
approval of a conditional use permit. The use on the property will not change or be
intensified as a result of the proposed project.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the
health, safety or. general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The project will not impact the adjacent dwellings because the additions will maintain the
required setbacks. The neighborhood will not be impacted because the use on the
property will not be intensified. The project is not out of character with the other houses
on the b]ock because there are other houses on the block that exceed the height limit
therefore; the project will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Additionally, the
project is subject to meeting all health, safety and general welfare standards and
regulations set forth by the City of Chula Vista
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use.
The approval of the conditional use permit for the additions to the single-family dwelling
requires compliance with all conditions, codes and regulations, as applicable, prior to the
final issuance of any permit for or occupancy of any new building on the property.
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.
Issuance of the conditional use permit and compliance with the conditions of approval
maintain the project's compliance with the City's General Plan and the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista grants Conditional Use
Permit PCC-03-55 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant
and/or property owner(s):
Planning & Building Department
1. The Applicant shall comply with the 200 I Energy requirements, all requirements of the
Building Division and the following codes:
. California Building Code
. California Plumbing Code
. California Electrical Code
· California Mechanical Code
~
1'1
2. If the attic is used for living space and is in excess of 500 square feet of floor area, the
Applicant shall provide two exits.
3. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This
shall be noted for any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of PI arming & Building prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally.
the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the CVMC regarding
graffiti control.
4. All exterior lighting shall include shielding to remove any glare from adjacent uses.
Details for said lighting shall be included in the architectural plans and shall be reviewed
and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of PI arming and Building.
5. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall
be submitted in conformance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the
additions will be architecturally compatible with and/or match the primary single-family
dwelling. Said plans shall be kept on file in the Plarming Division, in compliance with
the conditions contained herein and TitJe 19 of the CVMC, subject to the approval of the
PI arming and Building Director.
Fire Department
6. The Applicant shall install smoke detectors in all bedrooms and hallways and shall be
hand wired and interconnected with a battery backup so that anyone activator will sound
all new detectors at the same time.
Sweetwater Authority
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/owner shall obtain a letter stating
fire flow requirements from the Chula Vista Fire Department and submit the letter to the
Sweetwater Authority.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay all appropriate school
fees.
Standard Conditions
9. 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 additions, the Applicant/property
owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
10. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans dated
January 14, 2003 (including a site plan and floor plan) on file in the Planning Division;
the conditions contained herein; and Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
5if.
,<)
I I. This conditional use permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition,
may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue
source which the Permittee carmot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be
expected to economically recover.
12. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
13. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
14. The Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indenmify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives,
rrom and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional
Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including,
without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional
Use Permit where indicated below. AppIicant'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.
] 5. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and
signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to
the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy
with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return
the signed true copy of this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire
that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business
license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner of
626 Second Avenue
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
~
10
16. It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competen,t jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unen(orceabIe,
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-03-55 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 28th day of May, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russ Hall. Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
.?t
/7
r,_:
~.:... -'- J..
;:._ ~-i.':" i 14 I ~
~ '-1-=::" ;) 1
.---..,
A TT ACHMENT 3
March 17, 2003
Mr. Michllcl W. Walker, Planning Department
Public Service!; Building
Chula Vista Civic Ccm.c::r
276 Fourth Avenue
ChWa Vista, Ca 9t 910
Re, Case No. PCC'{)3-SS
Dear MI. Walker:
As owners of the home at 228 I Smct, a historic 1917 Craftsman, we are responding to the notice we
received concerning a request for a conditional use ~t by the owners of the property located at 626
Second Ave~.
We have owned our property for aver 4() years and our ancesu>rs are ODe the pioneering families who came
to Chula Vista in 190 I. A1though, we DO longer live in our fu:st benne at 228 I Sn=, we are the owners of
the J:iistoric Site #25, Leo Chrisry Hoose. built by our gnmdp8rents in 1928, The neighborhood around
Second is full of wonderful old historic hon:oes and single family homes. It is fun of c~, giving us
the feeling of a countJy community with its wide islands, inset sidewalks and homes set back off of the
SIIret with pleDt\' of room in between the lots. We have recently reviewal the proposed planS and we are
very strongly opposed to the granting of thi;o request. This addition would be toW\y out of character and
inapp<opriale for a neighborhood that, the City Council, ChuJa Vista citizens and locals homeowDe1'S have,
over the years, tried 10 presexve.
We just recently read another letter and a paragraph in it sums up our feeling on these dlons. "We
=gnize that the City does Dot yet have the mechanism to create a historic overlay district, but we know
that such a process is under considerntion within the new general pia!!. It would be unfonunare if the good
intentions of this plan were to be undermined by the short-sighted approval of the above-DICI1tioned
conditional use permit. Historic designation is meant to protect the chanlcter of individual homes and the
neighborhood as a whole. If the Zoning Administtatorwere to approve an over-scaledaddition more suited
\0 a high-rise apartment building than to a single-family dwelling. it would. ae--alue the City's fledgling
efforts to promore and preserve its historic neighborhoods.~
We musl aU work logether to come up ",ith a bettt:r way to preserve what little of the older charaCtet Chula
Vista has Idt We are, more and ~ becoming a fragmented, ill planned COlJlDlunity. We would like to
think that the City Councils wish to bring the city together would start by preserving its past. We have far
too many houses that look aliJce. We have !be rules on the 1xx>Id for a reason. Variances have their place.
Granting this Conditional Use Permit is cenainly l10t appropriate when the owuer can add to his living
space by building back. not up. Adding an addition which WQuld mimic an apaJ'tment building, not a
home. is Nor appropnate to the chaIaCler of the neigb.borbood. nor fair to the smaller homes on either
sid<:.
Again, we very strongly voice our opposition to !be granting of this conditional use permit
Sincerely,
~.()."o~
JOHN D. PARKS
124 Hilltop Drive
ChoJa Vista, California 91910
619-427-1471
~~~
CC: All Chula Vista City Council Members
City ManaIP David Rowlands
~
'8'
Michael Walker
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jim Sandoval
Friday, April 04, 2003 4:06 PM
'john.nancy1@juno.com'
Dave Rowlands; Michael Walker; John Schmitz
626 Second Street
Dear John and Nancy Parks:
Your e-mail regarding the proposed development at 626 Second Ave. was recieved by The City Mnimager's Office and
forwarded to Planning and Building. We will insure that the e-mail expressing your concerns is passed along to the
decision making body for this project.lf you have any questions please contact the Project Planner Mr. Michael Walker at
409-5472 or me at 691-5002.
Sincerely,
Jim Sandoval
Assistant Planning director
Cf:/
1/~
Jim Sandoval
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bob Leiter
Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:29 PM
Jim Sandoval; John Schmitz
FW: For Your Information
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Toledo
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:01 PM
To: Bob Leiter
Subject: FW: For Your Information
-----Original Message-----
From: john.nancyl@juno.com [mailto:john.nancyl@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:24 PM
To: dtoledo@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
Subject: For Your Information
Mr. Rowlands
John and I are forwarding a copy of our remarks about an upcoming review
for a Conditional Use Permit for a second story addition at 626 Second
Ave in the middle of the wonderful historic homes, South of I Street.
This very insensitive, over-scaled addition would be very inconsistent
with the preservation of this historic district if this were to be
approved.
We are looking forward to working with the city on the upcoming historic
home tour. Thank you for all of your assistance.
John and Nancy Parks
~
l;;tD
1
J. Carlos Fox
344 Hilltop Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 17,2003
Mr. Michael W. Walker, Planning Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. PCC-03-55
Dear Mr. Walker:
I too must voice my opposition to the granting of the above conditional use permit.
The City of ChuIa Vista has entered into binding contracts with the historical
homeowners of the city. These contracts represent a commitment by the homeowners to
preserve the historical integrity of the property. Should the City of Chula Vista grant the
conditional use permit to Mr. Bustamante as presently requested, the city would be
violating both the spirit and intent of the Mills Act and the underlying contracts that have
been negotiated by and between the city the various homeowners.
How can the city on the one hand undertake the extensive resources required to pass,
implement and promote the Mills Act, while at the same time allowing adjacent
construction that destroys the quality of the very neighborhood the city has contracted
with others to protect?
Accordingly, I must ad my voice and name to the opposition to the construction project
requested by Mr. Bustamante, and request that the conditional use permit he has
requested by denied.
Very truly yours,
J. Carlos Fox
~
::L(
,
MAi1 . - ::83
644 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 17, 2003
Mr. Michael W. Walker, PI3nnine Department
Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
ChuIa Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. PCC-03-55
Dear Mr. Walker:
We strongly oppose the granting of a conditional use permit in the above-mentioned case,
located at 626 Second Avenue. We live three doors south ofthe proposed addition in the
historic home at 644 Second Avenue. .
Having reviewed Mr. Bustamante's proposed plans, it is clear that the addition would
adversely affect the quality and character of the entire neighborhood. This is one ofChula
Vista's most historic areas, with six designated historic homes in our block alone; several
others abut the property in the 600 block of Del Mar Avenue. Many of these homes are
protected by the Mills Act, which prohibits the owners from destroying the historical
integrity of the property. Unfortunately, as this case demonstrates, that integrity can also
be destroyed by neighboring homeowners.
We recognize that the City does not yet have the mechanism to create a historic overlay
district, but we know that such a process is under consideration within the new general
plan. It would be unfortunate if the good intentions of this plan were to be undermined by
the short-sighted approval of the above-mentioned conditional use permit. Historic
designation is meant to protect the character of individual homes and the neighborhood as
a whole. If the Zoning Administrator were to approve an over-scaled addition more suited
to a high-rise apartment building than to a single-family dwelling, it would devalue the
City's fledgling efforts to promote and preserve its historic neighborhoods.
Although we certainly appreciate Mr. Bustamante's desire to expand his living space,
there is no compelling reason for him to build "up" rather than "back." The project site is
certainly large enough to accommodate an addition of the proposed size without soaring
above the height limit, and it is deep enough that a properly sited addition could be built
without dwarfing the smaller homes on either side or the historic homes beyond.
~
~
~
Re: PCC-03-55
March 17,2003
Further, Mr. Bustamante has demonstrated himself to be insensitive to the aesthetics of
the neighborhood. Prior to our historic home tour last May, we notified every neighbor of
the event in writing, urging them to "put their best foot forward" for the weekend. Mr.
Bustamante's contribution on the morning of the tour was to drive his truck up over the
curb and through his front yard -- which was then and cQJltinues to be composed entirely
of dirt - leaving muddy tire tracks across the sidewalk. He then parked his truck in the
front yard for the 1,300 tour-goers to view as they walked between the historic homes on
tour. This obviously is not a person who respects the neighborhood or who appreciates
the term "curb appeal."
Finally, Mr. Bustamante misrepresented the project to us and to several others in the
neighborhood, presenting the plans as a basic two-story addition. Although we did not
sign his petition seeking approva~ several others did, based on the false information he
presented to them. As a result, you should question the validity of any petition he may
present to you in support of this project.
Thank you for considering our concerns. We strongly urge you to deny Mr. Bustamante's
request and to continue to preserve the integrity of the planning process and of Chula
Vista's historic neighborhoods.
d?4~
es R. McVeigh
\
Imozelle T. McVeigh
cc : Council member Mary Salas
Council member John McCarm
Carlos Fox, Esq.
~
.;:L~
Comments on Bustamante Conditional Use Permit PCC-03-55
Comment #1: The applicant states: "This project will consist of expanding an existing
residence with first floor addition/remodel and a second floor addition."
. This is not just a "second floor addition." To even the untrained eye, the proposed
addition includes a third floor.
Comment #2: The applicant states: "The current house is relatively undersized for the
neighborhood, so the increase will bring consistency with the surrounding homes. "
. This is not true. The applicant's existing one-story house is consistent with the
vast majority of homes in the area.
. Of the 38 houses on the 600 block of Second A venue, 79% (30) are single-story
houses of approximately the same size as the existing house.
. The houses on either side of the applicant's property are nearly identical in size
and scale (Figure 1,622,626 and 630 Second A venue). The proposed addition
would be completely inconsistent with the scale and character of the surrounding
properties.
Comment #3: The applicant states: "Also, 3 lots to the south there are 2-two story homes
which exceed the height limit. "
. This is not true. At 644 Second Avenue, the Jennie McDonald House is a
Transitional Victorian Four-square built in 1888 and the front house on this
property. It does not exceed the 28 foot height limit. This is a historic property on
its original site and obviously predates City zoning ordinances.
. At 642 Second Avenue, the Frank-Garretson House is a Queen Anne built in 1889
and set back more than 200 feet from the street. Although it exceeds the height
limit, it is not surrounded by any other structure. Careful and expensive planning
went into the placement of this home to showcase its historic lines. It can in no
way be compared to the proposed addition, which will be less than 50 feet from
the street and 20 feet from the neighboring structures.
Comment #4: The applicant states: "in addition, two lots to the north is residence which
exceeds the height limit and directly across the street from that is another residence
which exceeds the height limit. "
. At 616 Second Ave, the Greg Rogers House is the largest example of Craftsman
architecture in ChuIa Vista. It is set back more than 200 feet from the street and
screened by trees from view on Second A venue. It is not noticeable from the
street. (Figure 2, 616 Second A venue from sidewalk facing west.) Again, it can in
no way be compared to the proposed addition, which will be in direct view of the
street.
l.R. McVeigh Comments on Conditional Use Permit Application PCC-03-55
March 27, 2003 ~ ~ y..
Page t of 3
. At 613 Second Avenue, the Byron Bronson House, built in 1888, is the premiere
example of a Queen Anne Victorian Chula Vista "orchard home." It is set back
more than ISO feet off the street. This house can in no way be compared with or
used as a justification for the proposed addition. The Bronson House, like the
MacDonald House, is on its original site and predates City's zoning ordinances.
Comment #5: The applicant states: "All 4 of these homes are historic buildings. "
. There are, in fact, eleven historic sites recognized by the City of Chula Vista
within a 600-foot radius of the applicant's property. This is highest density of
historic properties in the City. Five of these homes have been featured in Chula
Vista's Historic Home tours in 2001 and 2002. These homes were chosen for
their historic attributes and architectural quality. The applicant's proposed project
will exhibit neither of these traits.
. It is possible to remodel homes in architectural styles consistent with the
neighborhood standards. Two nearby houses (616 De] Mar and 695 Del Mar)
have been successfully remodeled in architectural styles consistent with this
neighborhood.
Comment #6: The applicant states: "Please see the attached letter with signatures in
support of the proposed design and request for Conditional Use Permit to exceed the
current height limit of28feet."
. This "support" for the proposed project is suspect due to the manner in which the
petition was presented to the neighbors.
. The applicant rnisrepresented the proposed project as a second-story addition
when in actuality it is an addition of three stories.
. The applicant made no attempt to show the proposed project in the context of its
visual impact on the site.
Comment #7: The applicant states: "The proposer d) addition/remodel with French
Country architecture will be a desirable contribution to the neighborhood and will be
an enhancement to the community as a whole. "
. Nothing could be further from the truth. This project is a detriment to the
neighborhood in both architecture and scale. Faux-French country architecture is
in no way consistent with a neighborhood filled with late-nineteenth century
Victorians and early twentieth-century Craftsman homes. It is likely that this
style was chosen to conceal the fact that this is a three-story structure. The scale
of proposed project is completely out of proportion to the neighboring homes.
The three-story structure will tower over the adjacent properties and will be an
architectural eyesore in the middle of Chula Vista's most historic neighborhood.
. It is interesting that the applicant now purports to be concerned about
"contributing to the neighborhood" and community enhancement. The subject
property's front-yard landscaping of dirt and weeds is singular blight in the
l.R. McVeigh Comments on Conditional Use Permit Application PCC-03-55
March 27, 2003 1'8" ~ S-
Page 2 of 3
neighborhood. This is an area in which the majority of homeowners take great
pride in the appearance of their properties. The proposed project's disregard for
both the architectural style and scale appears to be consistent with the applicant's
track record with regard to his concern for the neighborhood's appearance.
Comment #8: The applicant states: "The current structure is located 50 feet from the
front property line and will maintain its current locati.on on the lot."
. This not true. According to the site plan submitted with the application, the new
front wall of the house will extend several feet toward the street. This will ruin
the continuity of the current line of homes. The proposed project will not only
protrude upward but also outward toward the street.
Comment #9: The applicant provides no rationale, compelling or otherwise, for a
project that exceeds the 28-foot height limit. There are no site constraints. The
applicant's lot is 294 feet deep. There is no reason that the applicant cannot build a
house in a style consistent with the historic neighborhood within the 28' height limit.
Comment #10: For the zoning commission to grant this use permit, there must be a
finding that the proposed project is either necessary or desirable and will contribute to
the general well being of the neighborhood and/or community. The above comments
cJearIy show that this project fails to meet both standards and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
[LM~
l.R. McVeigh Comments on Conditional Use Permit Application PCC.03.55
March 27, 2oo3 4if "' I
Page 3 of 3 C>o(..p
ill
ill
,
c()
o
I
o
o
0-
c:
o
'~
ro
o
.-
0-
~
~
's
....
(l)
0-
(l)
(J)
::>
"'@
c:
o
.-
~
:.0
c:
o
o
(l)
C
ro
~
~
?
cD
c:
o
(J)
C
(l)
S
S
o
o
~, .:\,
"if>
Q)
~
(j)
c:
'0
ro
........
~
ro
t
-0
.-
(J)
"
"
"
,
Q)
~
-0
c:
g
(l)
<f)
s
o
....
........
(l)
?
c:
Q)
~
-0
c:
g
Q)
<f)
<.0
.,..-
<.0
\
N
Q)
....
En
,-
U-
~ ~I
LO
LO
I
C")
0
I
0
0
D-
c::
0
.....
CCS Q)
CJ ~
a. c::
Q)
a. >
<:( <(
..... "0
E c::
.... 0
Q) CJ
D- Q)
Q) CJ)
C/) 0 .
::J C')
CD
ccs 06
c::
0 CD
..... C\!
"0 CD
c:: -
0 C\!
0 C\!
CD
Q) I
.....
c::
ccs T"""
E Q)
....
ccs ~
..... 0)
C/)
~ i.J....
CO
c::
0
C/)
.....
c:: ,
Q) \
E
E
0 \
0
Lei
--.,
March 24, 2003
TO: Michael W. Walker
Planning Department
City of ChuIa Vista
FROM: Peter Watry
SUBJECT: 626 Second Avenue, Case No. PCC-03-55
Dear Mr. Walker,
I have become aware that the owner of 626 Second A venue has requested a conditional use
permit in order to increase the height of his home to higher than the height limit in that area.
I have been a volunteer docent at the ChuIa Vista Heritage Museum, 360 Third A venue, for
some eight years. Probably the most historic and valuable "artifact" that Chula Vista has from its
history are the old "orchard homes" that date from when Chula Vista was the "lemon capital of the
world." <;::huIa Vista, a century ago, produced more lemons than anywhere else in the United
States. The groves are all gone, the packing houses are all gone, but many of the grand orchard
homes remain.
The 600 block of Second A venue is the grandest site of them all. There is the Bronson
House and Carriage House at 613 Second A venue, the Greg Rogers House which has been moved
to 616 Second Avenue, The MacDonald House at 644 Second Avenue, and the Garrettson-Frank
House which has been moved to 642 Second A venue. When I take groups on history-tours I start
at the north end of Second Avenue, at the Gillette House at 44 North Second A venue, and then
work my way south. I save the best for last, the 600 block of Second Avenue.
Please do not allow one own~r to deface that historic block. There are reasons for
regulations and zoning laws, so that no one home owner can ruin it for the others. Please deny
any exceptions, particularly to height limits and in tJIis block.
Peter J. Watry Jr.
81 Second A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
O \E~\EU~(E
f \
PLANNING
*' ,;t'l
PETER J. WATRY JR.
81 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
[15) IE (G IE ~ W [E fruo
~\ MAY 2 0 ~ !~
PLANNING
May 20, 2003
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
c/o Michael W. Walker, Project Planner
FROM: Peter Watry
SUBJECT: 626 Second Avenue, Case No. PCC-03-55
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This is in regard to the request by the owner of 626 Second A venue for a Conditional Use
Permit to exceed the height limit on a proposed second story addition.
I strongly urge you to DENY the request. I have been a volunteer docent at the Chula Vista
Heritage Museum, 360 Third A venue, for some eight years. Probably the most historic and valuable
"artifact" that Chula Vista has from its history are the old "orchard homes" that date from when Chula
Vista was the 'lemon capital of the world.' ChuIa Vista, a century ago, produced more lemons than
anywhere else in the United States. The groves are all gone now, as are all the packing houses, but
many of the grand orchard homes remain.
The 600 block of Second A venue is the grandest site of them all. There is the Bronson House
and Carriage House at 613 Second, the Greg Rogers House at 616 Second, the MacDonald House at
644 Second, and the Garrettson-Frank House at 642 Second A venue. When I take groups on
history-tours I start at the north end of Second A venue, at the Gillette House at 44 North Second
A venue, and then work my way south. I save the best for last, the 600 block of Second A venue.
There are reasons for regulations and zoning laws, so that no one home owner can ruin it for
his neighbors. There ~re no overriding reasons even offered in either the application or in the zoning
officer's ruling why this applicant should be allowed to exceed the rules. Please do not let one owner
to deface that historic block, particularly for no reason. Please DENY any exceptions, particularly to
height limits and in this block.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Watry Jr.
81 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
.a::t.
'30
[]
ERIC FOTIADI
ARCHITECT & ENGINEER'
3241 Fifth Avenue SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
Tel.: (619) 293-3530
Fax.: (619) 293-3522
March 26, 2003
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Michael W. Walker, Associate Planner
Re: ZAV-03-08 changed to PCC-03-55, Application for Exceeding Height Limit
Joseph Bustamnte, owner, 626 Second Avenue, Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Walker:
I have a copy of a public document dated March 3, 2003, mailed to one of the property owners
near 626 Second Avenue.
We are challenging the City's action on this application.
1. The proposed development with its 34 foot height is not in keeping with the street fa(fade of
the adjacent homes. The proposed structure will be 40 feet from the front property line (not
50 feet as stated in the document submitted by the architect, Tim P. Jones.
2. The front historical home 2 lots south was built prior to height limits. It is more than 50 feet
from the street property line. The other historic home on the rear lot is 250 feet from the
street property line. Neither residence visually impacts the street fa(fade. The lots are 100
feet wide. These justifications made by the architect are not valid.
3. The proposed structure for 626 Second Avenue is 37.5 feet wide on a 60 foot wide lot. It is
12'-6" from the north property line. The adjacent one story 1100 sJ. residence to the north,
with only a 6 foot side yard setback, will be in the shadows of this proposed 38 foot tall by 56
feet long unarticulated structure. The proposed structure will cast its shadow with a winter
sun on the north house. The health and welfare of the north neighbor will be impacted.
4. The proposed addition with French country architecture mayor may not be desirable for the
neighborhood, but this in itself is not a valid justification to exceed the height limit. In any
case the architect states that the French country design of his project will maintain the
architectural style of these existing structures. Not true and not a valid justification.
5. The proposed project is out of scale with the neighborhood and out of character with the
bungalows to the north and to the south, on either side of the street.
6. The applicant's representative, Mr. Kevin O'Neill was the contractor for a residence 2 doors
south of the applicant property and in the rear of that property. The architectural features of
that residence would lead one to believe that the proposed structure of the applicant will be
more in keeping with that built residence. The French country character will be achieved
tastelessly by gluing precast river rock on a plain stucco box with aluminum sliders for
~
~,
windows and flat concrete roof tiles. Is this the architectural character that merits a variance?
7. The huge attic hides another third floor. Skylights and windows dot the roof and gables.
Does this design maintain the architectural style of the neighborhood? Do you need 10
windows to provide daylight to an attic? From the windows of this potential third floor this
property owner will overlook the neighboring properties, thus ruining the privacy currently
enjoyed by the neighbors.
8. The underlying purpose of this application requesting an increase to the roof height limit is to
provide more square footage and more density to a residence and keep it on a very small
footprint by using the attic as a habitable space at a later date. There is no justification for
raising the height unless one plans to add 800 sJ. to a potential third floor. There is no
hardship, unless the hardship is not to be able to add a third floor per the current city
ordinance.
9. The applicant can meet the current ordinance without requesting a variance from the height
limit. He can design a 2 story structure by going further west in the lot. There are no unique
circumstances that would prevent the applicant from meeting the current ordinance, unless
he has intentions of adding a second home to the rear of his property, thus wanting to keep
the lot coverage to the front, increasing the massing and damaging the environment.
I do not see any justification for allowing the applicant to build beyond the confines of the current
City ordinance. No justifiable hardship was provided by the applicant to merit the granting of a
variance by means of a conditional use permit. The proposed structure does not conform to the
neighborhood.
urs,
iZY 3~
~
~
Case #PCC-03-55 Conditional Use Permit Application to exceed the height limit
Site Address:
626 Second Ave. Chula VISta
REVISED
Applicant:
Joseph Bustamante
Consideration Date March 27, 2003
1 am the owner of a designated historical house at 642 Second Avenue, just a 3 lots south of the
property at 626 Second Avenue. I am strongly opposed to the city permitting the owner to
build an addition to his residence that would exceed the zoning ordinance height limit by SIX feet.
I request a public hearing on this application to allow interested residents to give their opinions on
this application. Our property values are stake here, and it is our right to be heard.
The Description and Justification statement that was su bmitted to the city by the architect, Tim P.
Jones for this project, contains several misrepresentations and false statements as noted below.
The Description and Justification states that "the current house is relatively undersized for the
neighborhood, so the increase will bring consistency with the surround in\;! homes.. The fact is
that the two adjacent houses to the south of this property, and the two adjacent houses to the
north of it are all small single story houses. To permit the building of a 34 foot Structure to tower
over these small adjacent houses would be totally out of proportion and scate!!
A. In reference to the historic houses on this block, permitting the construction of this out of scale
plan would be a huge detraction to one of our city's oldest, historic neighborhoods. The
justification letter further states that the "French Country design will maintain the architectural
style of these existing structures.. The existing historical houses are of the Victorian and
Craftsman style, and they were built during those periods of our cities history. There are no
French Country style houses here, and the city zoning ordinances apply to NEW construction.
The lot at the site in question (626 Second Ave.) is only 60 feet wide. The lot of the two
Victorian houses on this block are on a 100 foot wide lot. The requested scale for this plan would
be out of proportion to the lot This is a deep, narrow lot and the building should extend back
onto the lot - not up in the air.
B. The elevations clearty show that the plan is for a 34 foot high, THREE story Structure - with
TEN windows on the third floor! This plan would not be in compliance with the required height
limit - or the fire code. The expense for windows & skylights would not be made if this space was
not intended as a living space!! Vl/hy else wOl!ld this height be required??
This could be an attractive addition to the neighborhood if it were built in proportion to the lot size
and in scale to the surrounding houses. This can be accomplished by adhering to the height limit
of 28 feet, and removing the third floor and all those little side windows/skylights. They make the
north <met south elevations looks like an ar1\1
I want to be certain that no special allowances are being allowed in this case. Of note is the fact
that a member the planning commission is named as an agent for the owner on his application,
which is on file with the city. Please do not ruin this historic neighborhood with another out of
proportion Structure - like the Joe Raso residence on Murrray st. How did that get built??
P1ease contact me regarding a public hearing. I would like the time to prepare a petition.
~3'3
l~i~M~~: :3~:~1
I I j J
I Pl ANtW!G .
Corinne McCall ce~~
642 Second Ave., Chula Vista 619-422-7490
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE
EXlSTIN9 SINGLE-FAM1LTYDWELLING AT 626 SECOND A.VENUE, CHULA
VISTA. (APN: 573-180-14-00)
CASE # PCC-03-55
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The Project is a Class 1 exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act, under Section 15301
APPLICANT: Joseph Bustamant~
CONSIDERATION DATE: March 27,2003
The following Chula Vista residents are OPPOSED to the applicant's request
to exceed the height limit of the city building code and zoning ordinances.
NAME
[/
~ 3'1
\
\
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
EXCEED THE HIEGm LIMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 626 SECOND AVENUE, CHULA
VISTA (APN 573-180-14-00) CASE # PCC-03-55
APPLICANT: JOSEPH BUSTAMANTE
CONSIDERATION DATE MARCH 27,2003
The undersigned ChuIa Vista residents previously signed a petition in favor of granting
the above Conditional Use Permit. This petition supercedes that previous document.
I hereby withdraw my previous endorsement of granting the above permit. I am
OPPOSED to granting a permit to exceed the height limit of the city building code and
zoning ordinances on the above referenced property.
NAME I.P.---
. C~'--:> W~ tAl
:~~
~\\ \~ ~t~OUSS~~
· ~J~ ~~~
-
.
ADDRESS
~ >>;2rV:8/
DATE
] -2.,,-0>
~
-3 ~bc)~
3 -1.C .,..-<.>3
M 1.1:. I 2.aJ,3
311~ / <0
rAG ~3
G 3~2.7[y
b 6) d.'/til.
bI3~~
(; (~ )tcOT'V A \f1J_
~ \ ~ SUcJ~9 ~J~.
oiGt :3"5.
~
ATTACHMENT 4
January 5, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
JAN 1 4 2003
.
----.<-~
We, the undersigned support the approval of a conditional use permit allowing the house at 626
2nd A venue to exceed the 28 foot height limitation.
NAME
I!~u ,:... C! \J e ~
ADDRESS
6.2.\
Dc I r71 <V\
. 7)' ."
(i..\..-,_/ L- /~/{/
pAil.l."o.-<l fJDwokl/
,7~~~o~
'fh~ ~cJ/L
~ !/ /2l:i,~
xtl7~
J)e:..-Ve... !L--UrpYV-~--
'/ S~ M~
;J ~z::n
-,
,J'
,
~tt~
~C~
/ 7
\c ..(.--,/
'~J /,?,t,.-< AL~'
I
~/'1 2~ ~
(ytf.S2 2~ ~
fP;J.;!' ~,L~
0~1... ~~ tJw.p
(<"")0 ~{Pffv ('.----
b '3 2- 2- ",-CL Av e...
G 70, ,)-iVP ~
6 77' ;z.frCf ~
~r7 ev
b ?; c:;-
L'
Z~ /&-e- ,
~,
~
&'1:,") d.--
~ 3~
~--
'"
~
0q A _ ~;J, ~ c V
(,q 1- ;:: <,00 ,9 &,L C V
~
b~
W()).-tJ~
&p-
b,/i
1 v L-/
t-(,.,o~
G It
S<2-<:-<S,.) J jJ. V"-' <.. - ,_h
;);;- !2v-- {? J
:;,Y
c~ VIi-
~
Y!
(;; ((
~ul) JJ ~
~
(Ps't
L. v -.1\ '\~
/' .'J
"-=-
- ~-Y;?--
--
--
[[@1
JAMES & MARJORIE ROBERTSON
622 SECOND AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
PHONE (619)420-4781
I~~ :s;o:~ ~\
I .
PLANN\NG
May 7, 2003
Mr. Michael W. Walker, Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula V'asta Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No. PCC-03-55
Site Address: 626 Second Avenue, Chula VIsta
Applicant Mr. Joseph Bustamante
Dear Mr. Walker:
As owners of the home at 622 Second Avenue, we are responding to the notIce we received
concerning a request for a Conditional Use Permit by the owner of the aforementioned
property. Since we are unable to attend the Public HearIng slated for May 14, 2003, we
would like to respond in writing.
As Mr. Bustamante's immediate neIghbor to the north, we do not oppose the granting of a
Conditional Use PermIt. It should be noted that there are several two story homes on Second
Avenue and we feel the construction of this new home would be an attractive addition to the
neighborhood.
The Petition signed by the majority of the homeowners on Second Avenue, includIng the
ViCEH'resident of the Heritage Museum, indicates approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
We understand that there have been a few negative comments from homeowners outside of
the Second Avenue area and we feel they are unfair and should not be considered.
Thank you for your consideration in the matter.
~o~
James O. Robertson
k.~~ CP~hc/
Marjorie A. Robertson
~ 3 S
5/6/0)
fo Whoa It May Coneern,
!h!. te,ln ~esponse to the ~e.otteLlnc or the. hoae at 628
, -
Seeond ATe. I own the pIt,o,eity at 6)0 Second ATe aild haYe DG ):1.0-
ilea wIth so.eone wentinc t~ lip.oTe thepe hoae. I only _l.h that
I ha~ the !loney to ~o the saliae.'Beine e. ~el!lldent of Ch*la Vista tOil
5) yeds I at ",walie ot the l\1stdhd\OIie uea. and anzedatl theii
...t. :tot. haTe to adJiltt thelle u.e a rElw ho.es on this .1.oell: that sJite
not a. nlee a8 othe.s,.ine~Ge1b~sene orftheii24nd..t"ne~Chio*. the
othe*. I haTe .eert told that BOae or the ~e.ident's a.e wOB>>ted
that the Jiteaoldlng of this ho*e eo.1d aake the a.ea 10011: iad. We
haTe all seen the "l.ep~lntl!l !!.rul to:t an;rone to wOP";r aio.t It is
.eyond ile. Did anyone eoaplatn a.o.t the newe'll ho.ees that he:n ieen
idlt on this "lock? Did they reel these tit in ? If eo there shGd,d
"e no ,~o"le* it BOaeone wants to iwild on to a fio.e;~hat haa ieen
fief.. .enee.-itJ'i~ ,'iectnlnC, artd ..e lone II nette.
'hank Yo.,
-~
J1u1t B0WeItB.
~!tg~lUJLf,~
. 1,.1 \, "
j U1 U I. "r-'." " I)
!' I.', I_jljl,
~.- ;......
. ---.J
',_~-,",. =~ PI M./~fI>lr" , ,
_ ----~"t:""!;~:7'~.~=...........~.___
~ 37
ATTACHMENT 5
Historic House Exceeding
28 feet in Height
~ '-/ ()