HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2003/05/14
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, May 14,2003,6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA
CALL TO ORDER: Hall
Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Horn
Felber
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 23, 2003
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on
any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-02-13; Conditional Use Permit proposal to allow the
expansion and conversion of an existing accessory
building into a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling
unit attached to a two-car garage behind the existing
single-family dwelling located at 736 Church Avenue. The
project site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-1)
zone. The accessory second unit is in compliance with
State Government Code Section 65852.2(b). The applicant
is Daniel Contreras.
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit,
PCC-03-48, for Cingular Wireless to construct an
unmanned cellular communications facility at Hilltop
Baptist Church -740 Hilltop Drive.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-04; Auto Park North Specific Plan.
Project Manager: Raymond Pe
Planning Commission
- 2-
May 14, 2003
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Mitigated Negative Declaration 15-03-016 and Precise Plan
PCM-03-15 to allow for a mixed-use project that includes:
(1) 40 lane homes (condominiums); (2) nine loft
apartments; (3) 9,000 square feet of retail space; and (4)
reductions in parking and open space. The project site is
located at 760 Broadway in the Central Commercial,
Precise Plan (C-C-P) zoning district. The Developers are
Carter Reese Associates and Bitterlin Development
Corporation.
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Negative Declaration (15-03-008); Rezone (PCZ-03-02) from
the Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan (C-T-P) zone
to the Central Commercial Precise Plan (C-C-P) zone; and
Precise Plan (PCM-03-21) to allow for a mixed-use project
that includes: (1) 41 apartments affordable to low income
senior citizens with associated support services; (2) one
manager's apartment; (3) 2,219 square feet of retail space;
and (4) reductions in setbacks, parking and open space.
The project site is located at
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-03-06; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Site Utilization Plan and
adopt an Ordinance to modify the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA
Planned Community District Regulations. Applicant-
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC.
PCS-03-02; Request to approve a Revised Tentative Subdivision
Map for Village 11 of Otay Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 01-11A.
Applicant - Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC.
Project Manager: Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 3 -
May 14, 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 (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
~\\/?
::-~
~.=
Cm'r-Jf
CHURA VIS];'\.
Depa.rt:n1ent of P1a~g and Building
Date:
May 14,2003
Subject:
Planning Commissioners
John Schmitz, Principal Planner 9
Continued Public Hearing on PCC 02-13 (Contreras)
To:
From:
On April 23, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the above
application by Mr Contreras. However, due to the length of the agenda and conflicts with the
applicant's schedule the matter was continued to the May 14th agenda. Attached please find the staff
report that was prepared for the April 23'd meeting that still contains the relevant information on this
project, and presents a recommendation for approval with a requirement that the proposed second
unit be reduced in size. Also attached is a petition recently submitted by neighbors who remain
opposed to the project.
In the event that the Planning Commission finds that the facts of the request have not changed since
their previous action, staff has prepared and attached a draft resolution again denying the request.
Attachments: Staff report dated April 23, 2003 including draft resolution of approval
Petition in opposition received May 8, 2003
Draft resolution of denial
JCS
J:\P]anninglJohnS\StatrReport~\PC\2002\PC -736 Church 2nd Unit Cantin.DOC
/
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .2.
Meeting Date: 04/2312003
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Pern1it PCC-02-13, proposal to allow the
expansion and conversion of an existing accessory building into a 906 square
foot accessory second dwelling unit attached to a two-car garage behind the
existing single-family dwelling located at 736 Church Avenue. The project
site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-l) zone. The accessory
second unit is in compliance with State Government Code Section
65852.2(b). The applicant is Daniel Contreras.
The property owner proposes to add 498 square feet to an existing 408 square foot pennitted
workshop that would be converted to a 906 square foot accessory second dwelling unit. The existing
workshop is attached to a 400 square foot garage. It is important to note that the garage and
workshop were previously illegally converted into a dwelling unit. The accessory unit would include
a Jiving room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a) new construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC-
02-13 approving the request based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the accessory
second unit.
DISCUSSION:
Building Pennit and Code Enforcement History
In June 2001, Code Enforcement sent a notice violation r~garding illegal garage conversion to Mr.
Contreras. After two more attempts to advise Mr. Contreras of the violation, Code Enforcement
issued him an Administrative Citation because he hdd not complied. In November of 2002, Mr.
Contreras converted the garage back to a garage (SCe Attachment 3).
The 906 square foot accessory sccond unit is propo,cd on a 6,639 square foot lot. The application
for the accessory second unit was submitted on September 18. 2001. and was processed using the
State's criteria for such units becausc the City did not have an ordinance in place at the time. On
Junc 12.2002, the Planning Commission denied the project without prejudice because the property
W8S in violation of the Zoning Ordinance as a result of the iJlegal garage conversion, and because the
.:::JL
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
proposed size of the accessory second unit appeared out of scale with neighborhood. Although the
Commission denied the project, they indicated that their decision might have been different if the
applicant corrected the violation and scaled back the size of the accessory unit (see Planning
Commission Minutes Attachment 4).
The applicant initially appealed the decision, but withheld the appeal because he decided to correct
the violation by converting the illegal unit back to a two-car garage. The property was cleared of the
violation in November 2002. However, the applicant has not altered the size of the proposed unit
and desires to have the 906 square foot unit. The City recently adopted an ordinance that regulates
the size of accessory second units to a maximum of 650 square feet.
Since an appeal was filed subsequent to the Planning Commission's final decision, the application
remains active. The project can still be considered under the State criteria because the project was
analyzed using the State's criteria. Based on the City's adopted ordinance and the Planning
Commission's original concern about the unit's size, staffis recommending that the applicant reduce
the proposed unit to 700 square feet or less.
Neighborhood Issues
In prior hearings, a neighborhood spokesperson stated their concerns, which is commonly associated
with accessory second units. In this case, the specific issues included parking and the project's size
of 1,310 square feet, which included the garage conversion and the proposed two-bedroom unit.
1. Site Characteristics
The property is 6,639 square-feet in size, and contains an existing 904 square-foot single-family
dwelling, a 404 square- foot detached garage and a 408 square foot workshop attached to the garage.
The uses adjacent to the property include single-family dwellings to the north, south and east and
commercial to the west. The proposed location of the second unit is behind the existing single-
family dwelling.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
N0I1h:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Medium
Residential, Low-Mt'lhum
Residential, Low-Mrd1Llm
Commercial, Retail
Zoning
R-I
R-l
R-I
R-I
C-O
Current Land Use
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Administrative Professional Office
3. Proposal
The project includes a 498 square foot addition to an existing 408 square foot workshop resulting
in a 906 square foot accessory second unit. The unit would include two bedrooms, a living room,
~5
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
kitchen and a bathroom. The application for the accessory second unit meets state guidelines.
State law provides guidelines that enable cities without adopted accessory second unit ordinances,
to process these applications. The guidelines currently allow cities to require a conditional use
pennit in each case. State Government Code Section 65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I) is explained below:
(b) (I) When a local agency has not adopted an ordinance by July 1, 1983, or within 120 days after
receiving its first application, the local agency shall grant a special use or conditional use pennit for
the creation of an accessory second unit if the unit complies with all of the following:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The accessory second unit is either attached or detached and located on the same lot.
(E) The increased floor area of the attached unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living
area.
(F) The total area of the detached unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet (906 square feet).
(G) Requirements related to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review,
fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to the zone.
(H) Local building code requirements to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
(I) Approval by local health officer is required if a private sewage disposal system is utilized.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed accessory second unit has been analyzed using the state guidelines because the
application was processed prior to the City's recently adopted ordinance regulating accessory second
units. The analysis is as outlined below:
(A) No Parcel Map has been applied for to divide interest in the land, therefore the accessory
second unit cannot be sold.
(B) The accessory second unit would be in an R-I (Single-Family Residence) zone.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The accessory second unit will be detached and on the same lot of an existing primary single-
family dwelling.
(E) The accessory second unit will be detached from the existing dwelling and is therefore not
subject to the 30 percent limitation.
(F) The acc~ssory second unit would be 90r, square feet 0.200 square feet is the maximum
allowed by State law).
(G) The proposed detached second accessory unit will comply with all of the required R-I
developmen" standards, as outlined in the table below:
~ '/
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
Height
Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Front 15 feet 26 feet
Rear 20 feet 22 feel
Sides 5 feet each side 5 feet and 4 feet*
Parking 3 space 3 space
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 45 percent 33 percent
*Does nolmeet required setback. However, Section 19.58.020(B)(1) states that a one-story accessory building
may disregard any rear or side yard setback requirements if located in the rear 30 percent of the lot, or back of
the front 70 feet of the lot.
ALLOWEDIREQUlRED
28 feet (2.5 stories)
40 percent
PROPOSED
13 feet
33 percent
(H) Fees, and other charges shall be paid in association with the required building pennit, to be
applied for and reviewed in confonnance with local building codes upon approval of this
Conditional Use Pennit;
(I) Sewer service will be provided by the City ofChula Yista (not a private system). There is no
requirement for local health official approval.
Confonnance to Setbacks
Chula Yista Municipal Code (CYMC) Section 19.58.020(B)(l) (Uses) allows single-story detached
accessory buildings to encroach into the required setbacks"... iflocated in the rear 30 percent of the
lot, or back ofthe !Tont 70 feet ofthe lot." Conversely, SectionI9.24.100 (R-I zone) specifies ".. .no
dwelling unit maybe constructed closer than three feet to any side property line..." The site plan for
the existing garage/workshop indicates a five-foot setback !Tom the side property line, and eight feet
!Tom the rear lot line. Although the applicant initially proposed an addition to the existing garage
that maintained the eight-foot setback, staff required that the addition be relocated away from the
rear lot line to satisfy Section 19.24.120 that requires single-story structures not occupy more than 30
percent of the rear yard area.
The subject property is 6,639 square feet in size and is located in the R-l zone. The rear yard is
adjacent to a nonresidential zone on which an existing structure with a tall solid wall is at or near the
rear property line of the subject property. The proposed accessory unit will be located in the rear
yard behind the existing dwelling where it is subject to rear yard, side yard and on-site building
seh:'cks. Staff visited the site and identified residential uses on the neighboring properties to the
nwth ami south. There are no residential uses near the proposed second unit. The structures nearest
Ii' ! I". property lines of the project site includc a detached accessory structure to the n01ih and a
c " y creial building to the west.
CO'.'CLUSION:
The proposed 906 accessory second unit satisfies State Government guidelines for accessory second.
Howcver, the City's adopted ordinance limits the size to 650 square feet. The Planning Commission
denier' the application citing the garage conversion violation and the oversized unit. The applicant
had c'.)melied the garage back, but wants the large unit. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce
!Js--
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 04/23/03
the size of the proposed unit to no more than 700 square feet. Staff believes that this proposal is
reasonable given the reduction of the proposed unit and the fact that off-street parking will be
provided. The project would provide needed affordable housing and not impact the neighborhood.
Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the findings and conditions of
approval in the attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-02-13.
Attachments
I. Locator Map
2. Resolution PCC-02-13
3. Evidence of Cleared Violation
4. 6/12/02 Planning Commission Minutes
J:\Planning\Michael\PCC Reports\PCC-02-20
~ 0
~\~
~
\
t:.t:.1
"v:.' '311'
-\
\
,~
ATTACHMENT 1
---
\
,
~---
~
~
/'
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT
LOCATOR PROJECT DANIEL CONTRERAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 736 CHURCH AVENUE
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 477 square feet addition of two
SCALE: bedrooms to the existing 811 square feet two car
F'LE NiJMBER: garage which was used as a workshop in the past.
NORTH No 8::319 F'CC-02-13
h'\horne\planning\locatocs\PC:C0213 cdr 9/28/01 f;:f-
/
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 02-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-02-13, FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT LOCATED
BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 736
CHURCH AVENUE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE REGULATIONS 65852.2 (B)(l)(A}-(I).
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
City ofChula Vista Planning Department on September 18, 2001, by Daniel Contreras; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests a conditional use permit for an accessory second
dwelling unit for an existing structure located at 736 Church Avenue. The second unit will be
remodeled and expanded to include: two bedrooms, one bathroom, a dining room and living
room, for a total of 906 square feet of living space in compliance with the provision found in the
State Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption ITom environmental review (CEQA Section 15303 (a), new construction and location
of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 300 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 April 23,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission
voted to approve the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use pennits,
as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated
finding to be made.
I. That thc proposed use at this location is nccessary or desirablc to providc a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The requested use will take place within an eXlstmg single-family residential
neighborhood. The state legislation declares that accessory second units are a valuable
f
form of housing in California, providing housing for family members, students, the
elderly, in-home health providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within
existing neighborhoods. Accessory second units help to ameliorate a community and
region-wide problem of providing an adequate supply of affordable housing and does not
adversely impact the neighborhoods in which they are located.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed accessory second unit will not have a detrimental impact upon the
surrounding residential neighborhood. The accessory unit will be architecturally
integrated in terms of design, building materials and colors used with the existing
dwelling. The accessory second unit will be located in the rear yard behind the existing
dwelling where it will be screened from public view. In addition, the unit will be
constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The conditional approval of PCC-02-13 requires compliance with all conditions, codes
and regulations, as applicable, prior to the final issuance of any permit for or occupancy
of any new building on the property.
The Planning Commission finds that the request meets the requirements of the California
Government Code relating to detached accessory second units as follows:
(A) The accessory second unit is not intended for sale, but may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single-family use.
(C) The accessory second unit will be constructed in conjunction with a primary
single-family residence on the lot.
(D) The accessory second unit is detached and will be located on the same lot as a
single-family residence.
(E) The total area of the accessory second unit does not exceed 1,200-sq. ft.
(F) The accessory second unit meets local requirements related to height, setback, lot
coverage. architectural review, site plan review. fees, charges, and other zoning
requirements generally applicable to the zone.
(G) The accessory second unit project meets local building code requirements for
detached dwellings, as appropriate.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
This conditional use permit is in compliance with the General Plan, because Section
65852.2(b)(5) of the California Government Code provides that accessory second units
are exempt from the existing or future General Plan and zoning density regulations.
0;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista grants Conditional Use
Permit PCC-02-13 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the applicant
and/or property owner(s):
Planning & Building Department
I. The project plans including the site plan, floor plan and exterior elevations shall be
revised to show a 700 square foot maximum accessory second unit, which shall include
the existing 408 square foot workshop. Said plans shall be reviewed by the Planning
Department prior to submitting for building permits.
2. The portion of the driveway in front of the garage shall be kept cleared, and the garage
shall be accessible for vehicular parking.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit in compliance with the 2001 California
Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes, and the 2001 Energy
requirements.
4. Building plans (construction documents) that include proposed colors and materials shall
be submitted in conformance with the conceptual plans and elevations to ensure that the
accessory second unit will be architecturally compatible with and/or match the primary
single-family dwelling. Said plans shall be kept on file in the Planning Division, in
compliance with the conditions contained herein and Title 19 of the CVMC, subject to
the approval ofthe Planning and Building Director.
Engineering Department
5. The Applicant shall pay the following fees as required based on the final building plans
submitted: sewer capacity fee based on all new construction or additional plumbing
fixtures; and traffic signal fees based on the difference between the existing and proposed
use.
Public Works Department
6. The Applicant shall be responsible for removing and replacing the raised portion of the
sidewalk (area marked in white).
Sweetwater Authority
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/owner shall obtain a letter stating
fire flow requirements trom 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.
/0
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 unit, the applicant/property owner
shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
10. The accessory second unit shall be connected to the existing sewer lateral, or the other
existing utilities such as water, electricity, gas, cable, etc. for the main dwelling using the
same address.
II. 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 cannot, 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 trom the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
14. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including
court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising,
directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use
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. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
15. Execute this document by making a true copy of this Jetter 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
II
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
736 Church Avenue
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
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 competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-13 in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions contained in this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
/~
ATTACHMENT 3
~ t3
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROll CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes,
Thomas, Willett
McCann
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Caroline Lewis, Planning Technician III
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney II
Absent:
Staff Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (Willett/Cortes) (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of May 8, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZA V 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of
- January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum
floor area ration and to encroach into the required rear and
side yard setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant Conrado
Cabal bag.
Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to July 10,2002.
MSC (CortesiThomas) to continue public hearing to July 10, 2002. Motion carried.
*" 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to permit an existing
second dwelling unit at an accessory second dwelling unit
behind the primary single-family residence at 736 Church
Avenue. Applicant Daniel Contreras.
Background: John Schmitz. Principal Planner reported that this item was continued from the May
8th Planning Commission meeting to allow staff tile opportunity to relay to Mr. Contreras, who
was not present at that meeting, the Commission's concerns and position, which was that they
Jre nut interested in dpproving or further considering the request until the garage was returned to
its original condition as a parking area.
!;5 1,/
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
June 12, 2002
Staff met with Mr. Contreras twice since that meeting and he expressed a desire to explain his
proposal to convert the garage/workshop area into the accessory unit in phases.
Public Hearing Opened 6:13.
Daniel Contreras, 334 Bay Leaf Drive, Chula Vista, stated he understood the Commission's
concerns and directive to first convert the garage to its original use, however, he indicated that he
would like to obtain one building permit to do all of the work together phasing the work in three
stages, with the garage conversion in the second phase.
Pandra Boyle, 739 Church Avenue, Chula Vista, spokesperson for the area neighborhood
stated they collectively oppose the proposal based on their disagreement with staff's
interpretation of the State law with respect to size. She further stated that although Mr.
Contreras has stated that he wants to rectify a pre-existing violation, she indicated that
the violations were created by him after he bought the property. She, once again, urged
the Commission to deny this proposal.
The Commission requested that Mr. Contreras address the Commission once again in
order to respond to Mrs. Boyles' statement that he did the illegal conversion. Mr.
Contreras denied the allegations and stated that the violations were in existence when he
bought the property.
Public Hearing Closed 6:33
Commission Discussion:
Chair O'Neill emphasized the need to expedite the enactment of a City Ordinance on
Accessory Units, and stated that in the absence of one, although State law allows up to a
1,200 sf accessory unit, in his opinion, this proposal is too large, and, in fact, the
secondary unit as proposed is larger than the primary unit.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Chair O'Neill's assessment of the
project, and in his opinion the size of the project is incompatible with the characteristic
of the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, he cannot make the necessary findings for
approval.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he cannot make the necessary findings for approval
because he bel ieves the project as proposed is too large and therefore incompatible with
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cortes stated that it is regrettable that there appears to be irreconcilable
disputes with the neighbors and reminderl the Commission that Mr. Contreras has been
attempting, for some time now, to bring resolve to the pre-existing non-conformance
-#! I S-
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
June 12, 2002
issues in order to be able to move forward with his proposal. He further stated that he
believes the proposal merits further consideration and approval.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he is willing to give the applicant the benefit of the
doubt as it relates to the conversion being in existence when he bought the property.
The reality is that the property is what it is today and the project as proposed is too large
for the surrounding neighborhood. He further stated that it behooves the applicant to
address the size issue and consider scaling back the project because he would not like
to mislead the applicant into thinking that if the garage conversion issue is taken care of,
his proposal, as currently designed, would be approved.
MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission direct staff to come
back with a resolution of denial of the project based on the Commission's inability to
make the necessary findings for approval because the property has not been brought
into conformance and the unit, as proposed, is characteristically incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and would have a detrimental affect on the General Plan
and the quality of life within the Single Family neighborhood. Motion carried with
Commissioner Cortes abstaining.
I
I
~/6
/
."j
May 5, 2003
~.f~t ~~ U j# I~ ~
Iii i MAY ~t< t003 'lJ
I",
I "---......_,
L_~~ PlANNING
~.....~..,~--.--_.-
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We the undersigned are opposed to the approval of the conditional use
permit for 736 Church Avenue which is currently before the planning
commission by Mr. Daniel Contreras. The proposal Mr. Daniel Contreras
has put before you has the same number of square feet that the planning
commission has already voted to deny on July 10, 2002 due to the fact that
structure is too large for the neighborhood and would be incompatible. We
agree that the structure is too large and that parking will again be a problem.
We respectfully request that you deny Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-l3.
Signature
-. /
/
Address
Printed Name
,~
v
I,'
- U~.
. /
I
,,"',
-/
/
0' -
) cti
-.:, \J...Gl...V\ (, (' C)~
t!. f{/JA'a.... (; I &( S/':110
;:..cJ <L F ~( 7'/ Y It:'
t! /c-;;JI <L- t~,.L tL. I"c{ "/1// c) "
-1 ~ J- .:..-hv,-.:;....h t:.,-vL rn.~)! c:- L,~ C,\ t C"1tD V'\ t:./A"/j c:t)i2'!(rr)
')'v""t C',! . Tv.. I l\r'JLs."-.
'i-' ,~(.t' t1 It'. L" k'LI./:1:ili /.... :,.~,t6\.
t I.. /,11..~r',,1 1/ /1/ ,'/;./-i'~)
~ v '.. .
.5 (i'l [,m<;'1
ie. . '
L' ........- .~ -. . ,-
I:::'" f "" S
I 7
May 5, 2003
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We the undersigned are opposed to the approval of the conditional use
permit for 736 Church Avenue which is currently before the planning
commission by Mr. Daniel Contreras. The proposal Mr. Daniel Contreras
has put before you has the same number of square feet that the planning
commission has already voted to deny on July 10, 2002 due to the fact that
structure is too large for the neighborhood and would be incompatible. We
agree that the structure is too large and that parking will again be a problem.
We respectfully request that you deny Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-B.
Signature
Address
Printed Name
^"'.
If
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 2-
Meeting Date: 05-14-2003
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of a Conditional Use Pennit, PCC-03-48, for
Cingular Wireless to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility
at Hilltop Baptist Church 740 Hilltop Drive.
Cingular Wireless is requesting permission to construct and operate an unmanned cellular
communications facility at 740 Hilltop Drive, at Hilltop Baptist Church. The project will consist of
one 47-foot 6 inch monopalm and a 6 foot high wall enclosure. The project will be integrated with
the existing facilities on the site in color and architecture.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: That, based upon the findings offact, the Planning Commission adopt
the attached Resolution PCC-03-48, to authorize a Cingular Wireless facility at Hilltop Baptist
Church.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site is located at Hilltop Baptist Church at 740 Hilltop Drive. The 2.70-acre parcel is
zoned single-family residential-R-l. Hilltop Baptist Church is bordered by Hilltop Drive to the east,
J Street to the north, L street to the south and First A venue to the west. Two additional
telecommunications carriers have facilities at this site. The proposed facility will match the existing
facilities on the site, which consist of monopalms and several live palms. The equipment for the
proposed facility will be contained within a wall enclosure affixed to one of the existing equipment
shelters.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The project is located in the single-family residential zone-RI, and has a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM).
/
Page 2, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 05-14-2003
The following table specifies the types ofland uses surrounding the project site:
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
Site: RLM R-I Hilltop Baptist Church
North: RLM R-l Single-Family Residential
South: Park R-l Hilltop Park
East: PQ R-I Hilltop Middle School
West: RLM R-I Single-Family Residential
The purpose of the R-I Single-Family Residential Zone is intended to provide communities
primarily for single-family detached homes and the services appurtenant to.
3. Proposal
Cingular Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at Hilltop
Baptist Church- 740 Hilltop Drive. This project will be designed to match the existing monopalms
on the site. The proposed equipment enclosure will be integrated with the existing equipment
shelters and will match in color and design.
The proposed 47-foot 6-inch monopalm would support twelve antennas. The antenna height would
be approximately 40-feet, measured from ground level to the top of the antennas. In lieu of a third
equipment shelter, a wall enclosure integrated into one of the existing shelters is proposed to house
the necessary equipment. The proposed wall enclosure will be a 6-foot high block wall and will be
affixed to the existing 10- foot high equipment shelter.
The applicant will also provide additional landscaping around the facility to help create a buffer
between the facility and the surrounding properties. In addition to the live palms, the applicant will
provide a screen of landscape along the chain link fence to the north of the site, as well as several
flowering plants surrounding the facility on site.
ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Section 19.89 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, conditional use penn its are required for all wireless telecommunication facilities.
The proposed site is zoned Single-Family Residential and has a height limitation of35 feet. Due to
the fact that the proposed 47 foot 6 inch facility exceeds the height limitation of the SFR zone a
public hearing is required.
...L
Page 3. Item:
Meeting Date: 05-14-2003
The applicant has provided mappings of the existing and improved coverage area of this site to
demonstrate that the proposed facility would fill a gap in wireless communication service in the
Hilltop area. (Attachment 4)
In order to keep the number of new poles and structures to a minimum. the city encourages
applicants of wireless communications facilities to co-locate with other companies whenever
possible. While none of the existing facilities at this site provide the applicant an opportunity to
add antennas, this proposal will reduce the impact that a new site may potentially have. As
evidence that the proposed third wireless facility on this site will not result in harmful effects, the
applicant provided with their application a radiation impact study from Jerrold T. Bushberg
Ph. D., DABMP, DABSNM of the Health and Medical Physics Consulting firm. The report states
that the cumulative affect of the three facilities are below the FCC exposure limits for radio
frequency fields. (Attachment 5)
Through collaboration with staff, the applicant has proposed to affix the wall enclosure to one of
the existing equipment shelters in lieu of a separate detached equipment shelter. The site currently
supports two detached equipment shelters. The addition of a third detached accessory structure
would not integrate well with the existing built environment and would have a negative visual
impact on the site. The proposed additional landscaping will further help to create a buffer
between the subject site and the surrounding area.
Staff believes that the findings can be made to grant PCC-03-48 for the following reasons:
I. The proposed use is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility, which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed project is desirable as it will increase public convenience by improving
wireless communication service in the western portion of Chula Vista. The proposed use
will be constructed to match the existing landscape in form and character. The proposed use
will not interfere with any existing activities or conveniences of the general public and will
contribute to the general well being of the community by ensuring uninterrupted cellular
service in the Southbay area.
2. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity .
Accessibility to clear and reliable communications, which can continue to function in the
event of an emergency or natural disaster, may help to enhance the general health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens ofChula Vista. The proposed antenna use will not be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare to the surrounding residents or general public. The
Federal Communications Commission regulates the radio frequency emissions of the
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 05-14-2003
antennas and the facility will comply with those standards. In addition, the proposed
monopalm cluster and wall enclosure will not create a negative visual impact as it will
conform to the existing environment and landscape.
3. The proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code
for such use.
The proposed use will comply with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, PCC-03-48
as approved by the Planning Commission. All necessary permits from the City to install,
operate. and maintain the facility will be obtained.
4. The granting ofthis conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of
the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city. The proposed cellular
facility will help accommodate the communication needs of a large portion of the Southbay
community, as well as the western portion of the City. It is a passive use and therefore will
not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan.
Issuance ofa Conditional Use Permit will be in compliance with all municipal codes, if compliance
with the attached conditions of approval occurs.
CONCLUSION:
It is the goal ofCingular Wireless to provide sufficient cellular service throughout Chula Vista. This
location in the western portion ofChula Vista will help Cingular achieve this goal. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Resolution.
Attachments
1 . Locator Map
2. Photo Simulation of Proposed Project
3. Project Application and Plans
4. Existing and Improved Coverage Maps
5. Bushherg Co-location Study
6. Planning Commission Resolution
J :\Planning\Lynnette\administrative review\PCC-03-48 Staff Report.doc
y
,
,
HILLTOP
JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL
ct
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CINGULAR WIRELESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT Request: Proposal to construct, operate and maintain
ADDRESS: 740 HILLTOP DRIVE a telecommunications facility. The project will consist
SCALE. FILE NUMBER: of panel antennas facade mounted to a new 45' high
NORTH No Scale PCC-03-48 monopalm that matches the existing carriers on site.
c:\cherrylc\locators\1 ocators03\pcc0348. cd r 03.25.03 tV r/I/;c/) 1/ h/r/ !
,
':co
.~
~
'i1
~
~!f?
-.-
~~...,.;.-
Development Processing
Application Form - Type A
Page One
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
Oi~~ 276FourthAvenue
(6]9)691-5]01
I TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED (Check One) I
II!f Condlftonal Use Permft [staff use only) Case No.: Pu:. - 0 ~-'1'i1.
Filing Date: 11.-- \,0-'0__ By: \..:"\
D Vartance Assigned Planner: lUe\..l\c..~
Receipt No.: 01.- <>01'K 45::)
D Design Review Project Acct: M.. - 10 ~ 8
D Special land Use Permit (Redevelopment Areas Only] Deposft Acct: . N~jA_
Relat~ases:
D Miscellaneous: ZA ciPubl,c Heartng
I APPLICANT INFORMATION I
Applicant Name Phone No.
Cingular Wireless 760-715-8703
Applicant Address
6170 Cornerstone Court, # 180, San Diego, CA 92121 I
Applicants Interest In Praperty If applicant Is not owner, owne~s authorization
DOwn ~ lease D In Escraw D Option to purchase Is required to process request. See signature
on Page Two,
Archftect/Agent Phone No. I
Plan Com, Inc. Krystal Patterson 760-715-8703 I
Archftect/Agent Address I
302 State Place, Escondido. CA 92029
I GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types) I
Praject Name Proposed Use ,
SD864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church Wireless Communication Facility !
General Description of Proposed Project
(Please use Appendix A to prCNlde a full description and justltlcatJon for the project]
The project proposes to install 12 antennas on a new 47'-6" high monopalm. Please see the
attached Project Description and Justification.
Has a representattve attended a Pre-Application Conference to discuss this project?
It SO. what was the date? Un/.) Pre-App No.: NI A I i? 02._ n I (",
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types) "
LocatiOn/Street Address
740 Hilltop Drive
Assessors ParcerNo, TotalAcrea~e RedeVeloPlent Area [It oppllcot>el
574-281-41 ' ~O \\ A.-
v '-
I curre~enercJT'PrcJnLJeslgncruon \..-urrent Lone Designation Planned Cornmunl1y [~ oppllcoble) I
~l.-m R-l {\IN
[currenrroncruse Is this In Montg,r;nerv S.P.?
Church If\. i(
FORM A-DEV PI. (PAGE 1 OF 2)
12/99
Id-.
"
,/J!hd1Yl-!/)f 3
--.,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning &: Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)69]-5101
Development Processing
Application Form
Page Two
Istoff use only)
Case No.:
PROPOSED PROJECT (all types)
I
Type at Use Proposed
o Residential OComm. Olnd. !!!1Other
Landscape Coverage [% of Lot)
Building Coverage (% of Lot)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Type at Dwelling Unlt(s)
Number at Lots
No. of Dwelling Units
Proposed
Exlsffng
Parking Spaces
Total
Off-street
Required by Code:
Provided:
Open Space Descnpffon (Acres each of prtvate. common. and landscaping)
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
ross oor eo s Proposed Existing
No change proposed
Hours at Operation IDays & Hours)
Unmanned cell site - 24 hours/7 days per week
Anffclpated Total # Employees
None
Parking Spaces Required Spaces Provided
None - Unmanned cell site None
ren ~ opplcablel
Krystal Patterson, Plan Com, Inc
Pnnt Applicant or Agent Name
Print Owner Name
apac
~
Ia-~,O'd-
Date
Date
Owner Signature *
(Required If Applicant Is not CNmer)
* Letter of owner consent may be used In lieu of signature.
FORM A PAGE 2 OF 2
11/99
13
~\~
~~--:
- - ---
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division - Development Processing
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
CT1Y OF
CHUIA VISIA
Application Appendix "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: SD864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church
APPLICANT NAME: Cingular Wireless
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished
as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the
neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain
the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background
information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the
application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as listed in
listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
Description & Justification.
See the attached Project Description and Justification
l'f
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Cingular Wireless
Hilltop Baptist
2. If any person- identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person- identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No ~
If yes, please indicate person(s):.
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents. employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
PlanCom. Inc.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Signat re of contractor/applicant
Krystal Patterson, Plan Com, Inc.
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Date:
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSAR
GlsLo "?r
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-purtnership, joint venlure, as:,uciatiun. sucial club,frearernal organization. COlporatlOn.
estare, trust. receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, cirv and couf/try, eitv municipality, district. or other politica! subdivision, or anv
other group ur combination acting us a unit. .,
Ir
:.: c i n 9 u I a r ,.
WIRELESS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
NEW DIGITAL PCS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
SD-864-01
Hilltop Baptist Church
740 Hilltop Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Department of Planning
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared by:
PlanCom, Inc.
Contractor Representatives for
Cingular Wireless
302 State Place
Escondido, CA 92029
(760) 715-8703
Contact: Krystal Patterson, Planning Consultant
November 25, 2002
Project Description (SD-864-01)
11/25/2002
/(,
Page 1
--...,
:~< ci ngu la r"
WIRELESS
INTRODUCTION
Cingular Wireless (CW), a.k.a. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, was established in 1994 as
the wireless subsidiary of Pacific Bell. CW is a registered public utility and is developing
an all-digital wireless network throughout California and Nevada. In March of 1995, CW
was issued a license by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the
provision of Personal Communications Services (PCS). In November of 1996, CW
formally unveiled its San Diego PCS Market to officially launch the first PCS service to
the residents of the State of California.
Since the initial market launch of CW's "Pure Digital PCS" network, design engineers at
CW have had the opportunity to assess network performance and quality vis-a-vis real
market data and conditions. At present, ON is experiencing both capacity and coverage
deficiencies in the vicinity of the subject site. In an effort to respond to these network
needs and to ensure customer satisfaction, ON is seeking approval from the City of
Chula Vista for a new site at Hilltop Baptist Church.
BACKGROUND
PCS is a rapidly evolving digital technology that is changing the future of
telecommunications through easy-to-use, lightweight, and highly mobile
communications devices including: portable phones, pagers, computers, and personal
digital assistants. PCS provides voice and data capabilities for customer's
communications needs virtually anywhere and at any time.
The PCS network being developed by CW differs from typical cellular networks in that it
uses state of the art digital technology versus traditional analog cellular systems, which
have been in use since the early 1980's. The benefits include an eight-fold increase in
channel capacity, call privacy and security, improved voice call quality and an expanded
menu of affordably priced products and services for personal and professional
communications needs.
The PCS network is designed for much broader consumer application. In addition to
providing users with the convenience and benefit of "virtual office" capabilities, PCS will
serve to enhance personal safety and security. With the PCS network in place,
individuals wJII have the ability to communicate during emergency situations and/or
when circumstances preclude them from utilizing a conventionallandline telephone.
The wireless industry has undergone tremendous growth worldwide. Studies indicate
that by the end of 1999 there will be over 122 million wireless subscribers in over 125
countries throughout the world, and that by 2003 nearly one out of every two
individuals in the United States will be utilizing some form of wireless device.
Project Description (SD-864-01)
11/25/2002
/1
Page 2
:;: cingular"
WIRELESS
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed property is located at 740 Hilltop Drive just north of Telegraph Canyon.
The underlying zoning of the proposed site is R-1 (Single Family Residential). Currently
the sites use is Hilltop Baptist Church and existing Nextel & Sprint telecommunication
facilities. The area surrounding the proposed project consists of the following:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential
Church
Park
Park
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Cingular Wireless is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a telecommunication
.lacility.__.:(he project will consist of ten (12) panel antennas fa<;ade mounted to a new
'~5' hi9!Lmonopalm that matches the existing carriers on site. Please see the enclosed
site plans, elevations, and photosimulations for more detail. Please see the site plan for
a more detailed representation of the antenna location.
The supporting equipment will consist of the following: four (4) self-contained, all-
weather Base Transceiver Station (BTS) cabinets, one (1) electric meter panel, and one
(1) telephone interface. Each of the BTS units will measure approximately 51" wide x
28" deep x 63" tall, and will contain the electronic equipment necessary to operate the
facility. The equipment will be located within an equipment shelter adjacent to the
monopalm. The specific location and design of the proposed facility is illustrated in
further detail on the site plan and elevation drawings.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW
The FCC has allocated a portion of the radio spectrum to CW for the provision of PCS.
The proposed communications facility will transmit at a frequency range of between
1850 MHz and 2100 MHz. The power required to operate the facility typically does not
exceed 200 watts per channel, and thus, the CW facility is by design a low-power
system. Depending upon characteristics of the site, the actual power requirements may
be reduced. When operational, the transmitted signals from the site will consist of non-
ionizing waves generated at less than one (1) microwatt per square centimeter, which is
significantly lower than the FCC standard for continuous public exposure of 900
microwatts per square centimeter.
Project Description (SD-B64-01)
11/25/2002
l'l
Page 3
:;: cingular'.
WIRELESS
Once constructed and operational, the communications facility will provide 24-hour
service to its users seven (7) days a week. Apart from initial construction activity, the
facility will be serviced by a ON technician on an as-needed basis. Generally, this is
likely to occur once per month during normal working hours, though much of the
operational adjustments may be handled remotely by computer. Beyond this
intermittent service, CW typically requires 24-hour access to the facility to ensure that
technical support is immediately available if and when warranted.
SITE SELECTION
CW engineering, planning, and leasing staff have been working to improve, enhance,
and expand the Pure Digital PCS network throughout the County of San Diego as well
as to other underserved regions of southern California. Like existing cellular systems,
PCS will employ a network of transmit/receive stations ("cell-sites") that carry and
"hand-off" signals as the user moves from one area to another. As the user moves
from one cell area (the area where a base station and antenna are located to receive
and transmit calls) to the next, signals to and from the first cell site fade while those to
and from the next cell site strengthen. Sophisticated computer systems sense these
signal variations and automatically hand the signal off to an available channel as the
user moves between cell areas.
The network of PCS cell sites throughout the region is "Iocational dependent", meaning
that there is a necessary and logical interrelationship between each cell site.
Eliminating or relocating a single cell site can lead to gaps in the system or areas where
a continuous signal cannot be maintained, and may necessitate significant design
changes or modifications to the PCS network.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
As noted, Cingular Wireless is a public utility, licensed and regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and informally by the State's Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), and authorized to develop and operate a new wireless, digital PCS
network throughout California and parts of Nevada. CW engineers responsible for the
overall design and operation of this new PCS network want to ensure that network
coverage is available throughout the County of San Diego. The proposed site location
is essential to meeting the network's current capacity and coverage needs in this area.
At present, there is very little or no PCS network coverage to the roadways and homes
located in this portion of the County of San Diego. The proposed facility is intended to
address this need, and by design will interface with neighboring sites to provide high
quality, consistent network operations to ON customers.
Project Description (SO-864-01)
11/25/2002
/"'1
Page 4
~
)(: cingular'.
WIRELESS
PLANNING/ZONING CONSISTENCY
The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
communications facility will not create unusual noise, traffic, or other conditions or
situations that may be objectionable, detrimental, or incompatible with other permitted
uses in the vicinity. The following supports this determination:
1. The equipment associated with the communication structure operates quietly
or virtually noise free.
2. The equipment does not emit fumes, smoke, dust, or odors that could be
considered objectionable.
3. The communications facility is unmanned and only requires periodic
maintenance, which equates to approximately one vehicle trip per month.
Further, the proposed communications facility will not result in conditions or
circumstances contrary to the public health, safety and welfare, in that:
1. The proposed PCS communications facility will operate in full compliance with
the U.s. standards for radio frequency emissions as adopted by the FCC.
2. The radio frequency emissions emitted by the proposed PCS facility will fall
within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which transmits non-
ionizing radio waves. Non-ionizing electromagnetic emissions, at the low
levels associated with this type of wireless technology, are not harmful to
living cells. Among the items that result in non-ionizing electromagnetic
emissions are police/fire/EMS radios, television broadcasts, CB radios,
microwave ovens, and a variety of common household electronics including
garage door openers and baby monitors. Conversely, items that transmit
ionizing electromagnetic emissions include ultra-violet light, medical x-rays,
and gamma rays.
3. Data currently available on the effects of electromagnetic transmissions on
public health indicate that there is not the likelihood of negative impacts to
public health and safety.
Project Description (SD-864-01)
11/25/2002
olD
Page S
~
---
\.-:
(Q'j
- ':
:J~
cr>
C
~ ~.---
:> "'u
6 ;;
.. \3
~.\~~ :J
~IOB~ .~
'" c.S:>
Gr>o:t:.!2
~~o::!
o:=.:r..t:
U)s,r--O
'" '"
-0 D 0\
c: '" '"
.;: ....
<1) '"
'" '" :>
3 0\ ';;> C
C -0 - \..
....
<1) 0 0 0 (
'" .... 0 0
... \9 C>- ;<
'" lf1
.... . (
<1) . e
:>
0
U
.,",""...-
/fifid/:.-L I
- -- -----,---
" .' ---c "-"
~ ~\
, .,'\
\- \ \ " ':;;"
\ \ \ \ ~" '
,\ '\ ' \' ,~. ~80~ ~.~,~t-,<
,\ \ vii "~"- - 'If A. ,
", \ [ ,', f"""'\- ~,' ' . "", ,
\. \ \\ \ '~, \~i ,;vj/ . I \\ T-" ",- ~'~" 3Q- '17 4,
\ -' \.~ \\:.--.....-- \-- ,~I'\ \ , ) j
__ '- \ ~--\ I \ _ , ' .:-., \. '\" -....,..
\ 'c -"" \' ,I, I 'I ' '" 'I"
I ~>(I \ " , ' , ,I' \ " " ,
Jr'\ \ '. \- \" '. ''-c' '.f__.............\ \\ I,', /"" \ -\:./ i--
\ \ \ \, \ \' "" ,..\-;'\' \ t~CHUL AY!ST A, "
\ '$~\"n-'" ,~\\ ''0. :\<,.<';
.A I. \ , ");~>', ,o' '-- -. -,I ,
,- \ \ - \ ',." ,.--, ...... --l
k- \ \ -\ \-' \ \ ' \ ' ' - '<~... " '--...--.- i
, -- \' \ " \G, . , ~, 8D-405 --,-
, ,I \ \"", '",
\- \ \ \ \ \ - i \..-). \,.~'" \\\ ,~~-:>.-.
" ~ \ "\.o;~~.'~ \, '
\~~Al /---~,~~ \, " 'I ' \ < \, \
,~ ' " \
\ - -', \. '. .I.{ . \ ,
, " 1 \.
i//\~~ \ \ \ ~~2(j)i\, ", ," , .
r,-./ \ \ '\' , 'I,' ,\' \
'\,", 1,' ", '\~"".~ CC-O
\ ',. \ \ - \-
, , '; ," \ -, ,II' -, -,' ,ingul IJAtq'
, ,:,
1 ' \ ,
: ,\ -, \., ' , IS~bJect ~rope~,\
~' '. I I\' \ \ ,
, \, \ \ \ \ -'.~ \ \ ' ~ \ , <, \
'%,' \ \: \ \ ' \ \; \ \~rrco';co1t~ ,;CO;!! oi I CO'p;.,Jd Co,.",e
I \~\ \ \ .\' - \ 'L . ,
f\~:
I,,:, "\'
i.J- \ ,
: _\.-
\
/
/
/
/
:2iJe'i70 I
,/
/,
,
I,
I 'I
(//
" .Ir-'--
,,)
r
; \
~~
!
--i
\ ,'(1
\, I,' \\\~\~- ~' \
\ \'/\.-
",' ~,;;.,~s, "
-,--.y;I>."'-'!'S I \
I" , " .\ \
\ \ :< \ '
, >( /, \ \ :0
\ " \ 'I' .c ~
\ ,- \ \
. '" "', '
\ \ - \ - \ \ \ --~
'- '\ I I .. \ I
\, ''r .\ ..\.~
, ,,"," _ ' I' \ I' \, ,', \'~{o~\-
.SD 280~ C . ., . L_,~~.,_.. i \
@1997 Thomas Bros, Ma s
\ \
y
, "
\
.",-
!
I
~
'>
~
,
I
.\
, \
SD~855
. ,
\~
\1,6
"
"
Cingular Wireless - February 2003
8D-864-01 Hilltop Baptist - Approximate Improved Coverage Exhibit
,;)..;J.
-
\ I . \ \ \ \U '/(r, 'I,'" Ii
\ \\\\'" \\\ \ / \('j
, '- . r, \ \ \ .\ \. ") \ ,- -+
\\ \" / 2b~HO ' \ ,.' . , l. \
" \\ \:;~ \. \ \\ \ I ' . . . \ " i \
'-,:\' /\ \ i ,\, \ - - '" 41/, \ " \--..:\)
. \'-\ ..\ \ (',\ \ \" ", ~O~~ /
'\ /1'\)1 v
\ ~.,,\\ ~~\\.\:\\\ \ C,'. '~Sl~~ \~_.(' '~~"\/' / W,174, k
I \ ,1 <- \"" ) 'i ~ '/ ~'- J- (\ (T-L. Y)
,j <' n \ \,\ \.A;lr, ~ f:
i"-\ 's ~ \ ~ ~\~\~\ I \, ~-- ,i', ) ,c~)
\ \'\'\.....\ . \\ \__" j I \ \ >-,"-,..-<'.,~./
~ \ \ --~'\ ( \~'" ,'/--- '/.
,- ,\' ,- A ,. " .
I "\ 1- - /' 7 \ \ / ,'" ---:--- ---'\ \ -'I
\ \ -I,/"l. /\ '\~\\\ -\ ',\.J..--', '\ '/1 ',r, -,
, ->- - ) - \ # - \,;,- ~\ -.J < ~\------
. ,,-- \"/,,' " \\: ,":' \/,,'\ \~'\ ,',\ (' \ \~\'\ -- ::--/>-
.p: \-j \- \ ........\..-<\ ' \ ) \ \- ---\ ---
\ '} /\:'(\,,.(: "::;,' \ \ -,' / ; 1,' i~S' ''\ r"\ \ C-J r: I
__\ ~,' '--, I \ \ \,\ '" ~/\' , " \ --I /! '
\- \ \ ::>v-'297\ " ,', ,'\' ~ -- ", "/' -! :
~ \\ \ \~ ,,\; ,,\' ',", ,\, /\~\.;' \'\ ",)-\-)~ ~ lt1-
~ .\~ \ \ '\ '. \ \ , 'c \ ' c~~~ t"a-r -'" y .~--
I, \\'\\\,\\'\\ \ ,\-,\ \./\ -- ,if1!l!d .-:___,' \ '
\ I , \\\ \ \':\\ '\ ~ ,\ \ " ...J, , ___~bjeCt.Rrope \ \ I ~\ \~ \
~ \\ \ I '\ \, \ \ ',/, ' \ ___, , '~ \/
\ ,/ ,'.Ie' \ \ \ , \\ -', ,,/'--',.J / \ .:..,Y-' --'\
\ \_' ,\ /~y \" \ \" '\- \ \ / \ \ \ ,I, !' v\.--\
~, \ \ \ v '\ \" - I ' , \ \ / ' i I _ / _,,; p!:-S
,'0\ \ II--- \- " 1, / I /' \' tIP'/
~~ ,~/' \. \ ./ / \ \ ',,' / / ) '~'~ '
" ~- ....-\<A \. I I I I, \ -f-- _____
/'\ \), , ./' \~ \ \ 'vI .)" ~~) \ \ ----
II~ \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ -- ---I
\ ) \ \ \ "'y' ,\ \ ~-" ,'" /' C" - ,
\ / :V--\ '\ \ ':::~D\855, ,\.' . i " "; \.. \t-/~--
\.. I' \ . -\ \ \ _\ ~/ \\ _ __"~ -"..:'='__:-- \ \ \__\1 .____- ~
- -- r"'--~ \ - \ -).."-'\ \ \ \ D - " A \
l' .__--"-_.___I.cc' ~ u.L ..1-i....l._'\.....l....'J ._-28\lL-,-,c/ . , , ___,
@1997 Thomas Bros. Ma s
~- --~.~- -=---::()
Sf\ '
Cingular Wireless - February 2003
8D-864-01 Hilltop Baptist - Approximate Improved Coverage Exhibit
.;;l,;),
,
JERROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM
IHEALTH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSUL TlNG I
7784 Oak Bay Circle Sacramento, CA 95831
(916) 393-6168
Darrell W. Daugherty
PLANcom Inc.
302 State Place
Escondido, California 92029-1362
February 2 I, 2003
Dear Mr. Daugherty:
At your request, I have reviewed the technical specifications and calculated the maximum
radiorrequency, (RF), power density from the proposed Cingular Wireless (CW) wireless
telecommunications site, (referenced as SD-864-01), to be located at 740 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista,
California as depicted in attachment 1.
There will also be two other wireless carriers (Nextel and Sprint) that will be co-located on the same
site as the CW facility. The other carrier's site design specifications are also depicted in attachment
1. The maximum cumulative RF exposure from all three carriers is provided in this report.
This proposed CW telecommunication site will consist of a Personal Communications Services
(PCS) wireless facility. The facility will utilize directional transmit panel antennae configured in
three (3) sectors. The antennae are planned to be mounted on a mono-palm with their radiation
center at least 38 feet above grade directed at 0 (sector A), 120 (sector B) and 240 (sector C) degrees
true north. The antennas specified are EMS Wireless model #RV-65-18-00-DP for all sectors.
Technical specifications of these antennae are provided in attachment two. The sectorized antennas
are designed to transmit with an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 800 watts per sector within
a bandwidth between approximately 1,850 and 1,990 MHz.
Calculations were made in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Federal
Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (edition 97-01,
page 24, equation 10) entitled "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Guidelines for Human Exposure
to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." Several assumptions were made in order to provide the
most conservative or "worse case" projections of power densities. Calculations were made assuming
that all channels were operating simultaneously at their maximum design effective radiated power.
Attenuation (weakening) ofthe signal that would result from surrounding foliage or buildings was
ignored. Buildings can reduce the signal strength by a factor of 10 (i.e., 10 dB) or more depending
upon the construction material. The ground or other surfaces were considered to be perfect reflectors
(which they are not) and the RF energy was assumed to overlap and interact constructively at all
locations (which they would not) thereby resulting in the calculation of the maximum potential
~3 1
. I
1l=J-4-;J;/MJs
exposure. In fact, the accumulations of all these very conservative assumptions will significantly
overestimate the actual exposures that would typica]]y be expected from such a facility. However,
this method is a prudent approach that errs on the side of safety.
The maximum public RF exposure from this CW facility was calculated to be less than 2.0 f.lW/cm2
(i.e., -0.2 % of the public safety standard at 1,850 MHz). Exposure details are shown in appendix
A. Detail regrading the Nextel and Sprint facilities were not available but a conservative estimate
of there RF exposure can be made from the site plans provided and my extensive experience
analyzing similar RF site designs for these carriers. The maximum contribution to the ambient RF
environment from the Nextel and Sprint facilities wi]] be less than 1% and 0.5% of the public safety
standard respectively. Thus the ma:ximum cumulative exposure from all three carriers will be less
than 1. 7% of the public safety standard A sign conforming to with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol and
content should be placed close to the antennas with appropriate contact information in order to alert
maintenance or other worke~s approaching the antenna to the presence ofRF transmissions and to
take precautions to avoid exposures in excess of FCC limits.
/
The two most widely recognized standards for protection against RF field exposure are those
published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1 and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and measurement (NCRP) report #86.
The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide expert
analysis of a variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all
forms. The scientific analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory
community both nationally and internationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health
regulations currently in existence can trace their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the
NCRP.
All RF exposure standards are frequency-specific, in recognition of the differential absorption ofRF
energy as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are
associated with those frequencies that are most readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption
occurs at approximately 80 MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous
occupational exposure at this frequency is 1,000 f.lW/cm2. This compares to 5,000 f.lW/cm2 at the
most restrictive of the PCS rrequencies (-1,800 MHz) that are absorbed much less efficiently than
exposures in the VHF TV band.
The traditional NCRP philosophy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the
general population compared to occupationally exposed individuals, prompted a two-tiered safety
standard by which levels of allowable exposure were substantia]]yreduced for "uncontrolled" (e.g.,
public) and continuous exposures. This measure. was taken to account for the fact that workers in
an industrial environment are typically exposed no more than eight hours a day while members of
the general popuJation in proximity to a source ofRF radiation may be exposed continuously. This
additional protection factor also provides a greater margin of safety for children, the infirmed, aged,
or others who might be more sensitive to RF exposure. After several years of evaluating the nationaJ
and international scientific and biomedical literature, the members of the NCRP scientific committee
selected 931 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on which to base their
~y 2
recommendations. The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous public exposure at PCS
frequencies to 1,000 f.L W/cm'.
The current ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28) under
the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled
"IEEE Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" (IEEE C95.1-1991), was issued in April 1992 and
subsequently adopted by ANSI in November 1992. The current A.1,,"SI/IEEE standard is similar to
the current NCRP recommendation for public exposure at PCS frequencies (1,200 f.L W/cm') for
continuous exposure and incorporates the convention of providing for a greater margin of safety for
public as compared with occupational exposure. Higher whole body exposures are allowed for brief
periods provided that no 30 minute time-weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned
limits.
On August 9, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a RF exposure
standard that is a hybrid of the current ANSI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible
exposure values used to assess environmental exposures are those of the NCRP (i.e., maximwn
public continuous exposure at PCS frequencies ofI,OOO f.LW/cmz). The FCC issued these standards
in order to address its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) to
consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." In as
far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EP A), the FCC utilized their rulemaking procedure to consider which standards should be
adopted. The FCC received thousands of pages of comments over a three-year review period from
a variety of sources including the public, academia, federal health and safety agencies (e.g., EP A &
FDA) and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the
recommendations by the federal health agencies because oftheir special responsibility for protecting
the public health and safety. In fact, the maximwn permissible exposure (MPE) values in the FCC
standard are those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates various
elements of the 1992 ANSI and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widely
accepted and technically supportable.
There are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by other national and international
organizations and governments, most of which are similar to the current ANSI/IEEE or NCRP
standard, figure one.
The FCC standards "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation" (Report and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSI/IEEE definitions for controlled and
uncontrolled environments. In order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled
environment, RF exposures must be occupationally related (e.g., PCS company RF technicians) and
they must be aware of and have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other
environmental areas are considered uncontrolled (e.g., public) for which the stricter (i.e., lower)
environmental exposure limits apply. All carriers were required to be in compliance with the new
FCC RF exposure standards for new telecommunications facilities by October 15, 1997. These
standards applied retroactively for existing telecommunications facilities on September 1,2000.
-lS-
3
The task for the physical, biological, and medical scientists that evaluate health implications of the
RF data base has been to identify those RF field conditions that can produce harmful biological
effects. No panel of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept,
and negatives are not susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is
the presumption of safety when RF-field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful
effect.
PCS transmitters, by design and operation, are low-power devices. Even under maximal exposure
conditions in which all the channels from al1 antennas, from al1 three carriers, are operating at full
power, the maximum cumulative exposure from this co-location facility wil1 not result in RF
exposures in excess of I. 7% of the public safety standard at any publically accessible location. A
chart of the electromagnetic spectrum and a comparison ofRF power densities from v.arious common
sources is presented in figures two and three respectively in order to place exposures from PCS
telecommunications systems in perspective.
It is important to realize that the FCC maximum al10wable exposures are not set at a threshold
between safety and known hazard but rather at 50 times below a level that the majority of the
scientific community believes may pose a health risk to human populations. Thus the previously
mentioned maximum cumulative exposure from the site represent a "safety margin" from this
threshold of potential1y adverse health effects of more than 2,940 times.
Given the low levels of radio frequency fields that would be generated from this co-location facility,
and given the evidence on biological effects in a large data base, there is no scientific basis to
conclude that harmful effects wil1 attend the utilization of the proposed wireless telecommunications
facility. This conclusion is supported by a large numbers of scientists that have participated in
standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that RF radiation
exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably hannfuJ effects on humans.
These findings are based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health
and safety of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and my analysis of the technical specification
as provided by CWo The opinions expressed herein are based on my professional judgement and are
not intended to necessarily represent the views of the University of California. Please contact me
if you require any additional infonnation.
Sincerely,
~~'"'T'- ~~
Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM
Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics (DABMP)
Diplomate, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (DABSNM)
Enclosures: Figures 1-3; Attachments 1,2; Appendix A, and Statement of Experience.
;;:;...h
4
V:)
~
'.......
\..)
~
c;u
;:s
~
~
~
'N'
~
a
a
co
~
.........,
~
U
~
-......
\j
~
~
~
~
\j
r))
c;u
~
;:s
V:)
a
~
ki
b
~
~
\..)
......
-.....
....t:::)
;:s
~
o
o
~
,.....,-\
o
o
N
?""'I
o
o
o
?""'I
o 0
o 0
00 \0
o
o
~
o
o
N
~7
zUI~/SnUMOJJ!W
~~1!
V-I;
**
o~
~/b
~~ ~~
~ *
lot}
~-1t
~
t},)
~lo
~
~
~~
7-1"t}
Q: ~t}
lo~ 1?
~
~
lo~
D
~0
o/~
'/)
00
~~
'/)
4
~k
~
'/)
o
'"
"
-
::r.
~
'"
~
"
coo
" "0
.."
; 'c
- ~
- ...
. .
~
~
~
..
:::
Cj
~
;
;;.;
E
o
"0
g'
~~
~'?
.S ~-
i:=
" c
:JJCC-'';:1
o . .
O~
"
...
"
] ===
- "
- "
~ -
":""'=
:; E
~ E
_ 0
,-,u ~.::
-;:. u ... II:!
~.- :; ~
....,"'" i.. :::
=:::.....:
~c
... Co) . .
;; "u
-.::00
" "
'tj -=
0-
"'.....
'" 0
< ~ ~ "0
_ C,) "1':::! _
o.cg;
-= E. c; '0
" "u
~:; . ~
::- .
- ~
c'"
.: ~
- .....
,,~
:;"'C
" ...
,.., "
=] .:!
" " -
:: - E
.: r.n "i;; >.
~ e := ";
E~<~
" 0 .
- '"
.s ><
-Ie ~
.:
.....
"
...
"
...
~
"
~
-
-
o C -
U -
..:::: ~
tE: .: c;
0;-.-::
c
"
.'U
VJ
~
-
-
o
'"
r.; .=
" "
"E coo
C,) ~ "0
~ ~~
" -
2=~
'" . .
'"
.....
~
. .
~
...
"
"0
C
"
ii'j
" ~
... ~
::: ::;
'" "0""";
~ ~
>oil >.'_
~ C ~
"'''''0
Z E .E
'- i...-
" " ~
"'0;5
.:! . .
~
-
~
.s
<::
"
o
...
c.
<l)
.....
;::;
co
~
c C,).::
.9: U i..
_ C -
.:: i: =
-g......:
..:
. .
..
c
:a
c
o
-
,
S :: "0
Z ~ C
" "
c ~"O
OVJc.
c
o
'"
'"
's
E
o
u
. .
..
:: .::
~ E
~1;;.Q
... " "
~<~
c . .
-
.
.
t
(.)
-
....
0)
c:
tn
(0 C
E. 0
0-;:0
~ (0
(.) .-
0)"0
_ (0
\,llCC
tn
c:
-
1'01
\ .~~ k
_.. _ _...... ~ i j~C\
':)':1' "'-I
i~~--
'~~ ~~~.
':I'(O.~
~$
,~ c \j:J
'i ~ 0
co g ~....:,~
~ ~ :! /f'"
(,) l~ 6)
~ ~~~r %~~.
c ~ 0000 I (0. :. ·
~(t:' ~ ~-
%~ ~~~
~::; 't:3~
(,)~'$:.6$
~ C _%tf)
\,ll 0 (,)
tnO;;:;
C (0
t:l:t5
c:.(O
oCC
-
C
o
Z.
o ~c
~~. ~
\II (0. "c
o ~ ~
o
\
-- ?"'%~
(O.~_o.
00"" (0.
~~~'Q
~(O. S
~~
In
~
...
,
')<.
\
,....
(0. Q)
...-
.... 0
so;.
-0
Q)
...
1
(0.
...
:s
Q) '"
5't:
CI>
'&~
~O
0'"
0..
\
;)..1;
.c
~
~c
~
~
-0
0)
81
o
.~
~
~
~
~
o
p
o
r~
~
~
~
N
~
~
of)
......
~
"c
~
c
~
~
~.
..
.~
~
.C
~
In
CI>
~
~
::>'
~
.os
o
~
(0.
~
~c
~
~
.$
"0
~
~
'C
~
.
.~
.
.0
...
"
.0
...
"'0 ~O
~ g In ~
.. Q) -0 '0
:::. c:.-- .,..
...-Q)p
.... ""',..... '0
o (0. U- ...
CI>:a
~
-
~
-
~
...
Q)
~
W
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
'0
'-
:-0
~
; a::: C/')
:C/')Q)
~~~
: ,0 ~
.t::a
; ~ CI)
c:~
:~ ~
Q)e
'!..::.(,)
:~~
,Q"
.~~
, UJ g
: - Q)
~~~
: '- tr-
: Q.. Q)
~u:
o
I.t)
("')
f
o
o
("')
-:::::':'0=:::-
~
~~
~
~
-:::::~
o
I.t)
N
o
I.t)
N
o
o
N
~
, ,-.-., ,
!~
-~>"'Cr}!'
~.:~ ~ :
,,'- "
,
o
~
1"<<,;1
;:;: '\
.,,Jj- "
'~\!'...
~
--
I
,':'_ i
"~
I.t)
~
o
N
o
o
~
o
I.t)
~
o
o
~
o
I.t)
Z UIJ I SnCM.O.lJrw ur a;unsodX3:
~c;
o
I.J'J. =0
U .- 0
~ ~ Q.:
.- ... :...
---0
e:..Q ;; .....
<.>- ~
._,..- 0 _
c.- c."S:n
>-. ~.-
E- '-'I <.>
Z
~ (J"j=
'" '" r , .::;
:E<J"-""''''
.- = ~.~ ..n
-~ ..-
";..QQ~=.~
c::; = C. S '" I:F1
--c...;.< ==
c. '-'I 0 '"
>, .:: "-
E- E-
-
>,0
..Q~-
"'-
~o
:t
'"
'" c:.>
c:.> _
- -
"00
.. -
oE:;
U
c:.>
;>
"'=
~ c:.>
o ;>
bO
~
~o
=::;;.s
uo",
:t::=:
'"
"-
c:.>
- ....
0-....
:E'- 0'-
-.- '"
~- '"
r~ '" '" '"
-::=:....=
1:F1",
..
E-
"0
= c:.> 0
==.-
'" .0 "0
'" <:> '"
;g:E~
~
M
,
<1):
;....:
~:
bD '
,-
~
Attachment 1
Site Specifications
3D
--....--......
-"'---
--. -~~,_.....
r:>,<I'.:>on-y
O/rnKYJ'Q
1)1)
--
-
I-
C[)
...- I- Q
Oo...I~*
~<(O~<3
c.oma:~<
00 0... :::> ~ t5
I OI d5
OC[) I- 0 ~~
..J " J:
..J 0
I
,.
M
LVI
ro~
w
:J;
m
C
e_
U
~
j'i!j'n6UFJ >.:
n
h~~
~ ~in
i i!~2~
l1EH! 3"1J1l
.,.,,"'-......,
----
~
.LEIlJ.d\f8dO.L~
-
-r- !
..ot'UIIII o!!
::===:::::::: I- ii I
-, _'''' - I ~
".LYOIII"1 I
j
!
I
I
i
i
;
j
!
I
! ! ,
~ II I ! i
.
n!1! !
!
i
~
,
!
,
I I
i ~ i !
! . f '
i i!~:d
. ~ - II ! ,
. - i - .. i
~ ,niHil ~
~ !i.i, I' I ~
Ii~H,~!
,
Iii! 'Ii!!
~It:! ';,il
,'9 !IIII"I
I!ii ell!!
i ~ i ii' Ii
i ~ji Ii! Lilli! !llili !III
.J .J ft.h ~ ,k !,II
r },
i " 'I
~ ;:i
:j ;1 'i
!' 1!I!i
IPdl
~ '!I ill!!!
iilg!b
~ !il~; it!
I
L ii
GLh!ulii
~ .1 t 1
~ ,
1! I; ~
~ !!:,til!=~. l
)
II
,I
.'
Ii
"II
II, II
!I'
:111 II
II, II
~ ill!:
i
Inll!
g h 1 "'1
Ii III II
~ q II i i'
~ 11111:1
i
~
rr=
I
I
-..
-:-'::';'i'~
~/mx>rrl-'
omtJo(]!G
J.ej"ri6up ):(
tGJ
--
-
I ! i
! Ii
f i ! j I
I II II
Of< '''' "
!~! 1-"
, I
I.
I: I] II ,f'"
.. !:~'
,11
"
I
ijh"~
. : I ,I
:11 II 0
Ii; II \
:i I;
~!; OJ
IL I
I ...._>h ... IJ.
! ~'~
l
: i
I'
"I
I;'."
In
\' ,
Ii l
: I
I'
, I
, ,
~ ~
II
I '
II :
,.-.'
,
, i
~...~-
,
NY1J"""
...~~:'
~
.LSU.dV8 dOl-n-l
-
, ~ I
.110'.1....11 O.
:;=____0 !!
_, __,,,,_ Ni:
_I.' I
I.tnr.".., .. , I
3^,~a d0111lH
~~__'=_';;=___h I I :
"e,"':""- ,', ~- 0 0 -'-------~
> _ -'-:f"" ~ _" 0
.:..";._ ,-............./.J 0 '
,,', ",-, 1
- ,
~~ I
I:
I
I.il I
t-
Ii
h
:f-I
,
!
1
I
,
!
1
1
c
II
,
-,
I,
j:
,I
--'
, -I
.......r
,
Ii
,
,
w
,
!
I
, .
- \1 \ ,\ '
,,__L--___ \ ~ '
M_-_---- \ ,J
.......... --------".
!~ I
\ I.~I:'
I II il jl
Iii Ii
I~ !I ~
III ~I
1,1 I!
I! I
I; ;1
II II
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
i~
1
!
I
I
~
I
"'f/) ~
.
.
~
~
Ii
-'
....--...........-'"
...-......-.........
t<>"".:>on'Y
mrwoa '0
j'e'jli6u!J >.:
1.:G1
_u__ ,
~
~
..-.- ...~
-.-..-..
-.---
I ~II I
;IIII~ Ill\!
III I~; ~ Iii!
II! In zl,h
~~ -..
i
!
I
I
i i
I I
!
,
:
~
SNCU",,",,"'"""'"
."'::'~:;.:oc
~
.lSU.d't8 dO.L TlH
I
I III I
;111i~ 11111
III I~; Illil
mm~ln
~
~
~
II i :. I: C'-I !I
~IIOI'1A11I O~!
.,---'- -, .;
.,--_._~. N I
-, -, -,.. -, )
111'l'gIA"1
N
i
!
I
I
i
I
-..---
----",.
..-._ -,t.o
~
~
~
~
I
--_...:..:~...,:;:::::;::
-..-. ;;;~.;;;;;;
01fT1lOG'G
,j'ej'n6u!::J ).(
r;q]
-~
~
I
i!
I I
II
I~,-
!
1 !
! I
I I
~
,
I Ii 1
11 iii II~I
il! i!P Iii!
mm!ln
9OJ.v:>ni 00IB1X3
, " ,..,..., I
, ; I \..-J.
~.OI"U\l 0 ~ ~
..;_...._,__J ,-
.,-----. N i
-, -,.. -, I
I~!YO 1In.,1
........-........
~--
fQ;('H)
lSl.L.d't8 dOl T1H
-
:!
N
.
~
~
__1O_.rP
I :11,1
;IIII~ Illn
III i[; I IIi!
Ii! III .I!I~
I
II
! !
II '
I
II
II
I I
~
~
!
~
~
j
, ,
.
c\ngu\ac.
W,"E\.ESS
" .
.-..~
-
~
n_
~ :~
Looking }lort\>
;
-- --
--~~:.....-~:......::-:- --
Looking East
Pa~e 1
'3S
SD_864-01 HillloP Baptist Church
.
cingular'.
WIRELESS
'.
"
Looking South
Looking West
~?
Page 2
SD-864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church
" ,
.
~ >
c in 9 u I a r ,.
WIRELESS
View of Two Existing MonoPalms (Sprint and Nextel) and Proposed Cingular MonoPalm and
Shelter to Match Existing - Looking Northwest
'.
.-
-;,.i~:-
-.-....
f~':::~:~':~':' .
."
'.-
-:.ti"'~'-'
"-~/
>>"':.("'":",; ,-;,... 4.
. .L /';'?:f','<-::L
-".7'~. .;~'!i7 '
~:;:~W:j'
. ~~-;:I ..:,.,.t" ...,.,
-~.).oI.h~" <f~" ..~-
...~.._~ ~....'t_ ....:.
-'
1_ ..
,
~.....;~~..
View of Proposed Project Location - Looking Southwest
SD-864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church
3'7
Page 3
>', c\ngu\ar"
WU''ElESS
"
View of Site Looking to Northeast
\
\
,
\
\
_.---~-----
View of Site From Hi\\toP Ave. Looking southEast
rage 4
3~
SD_864-0t Hilltop Baptist Church
, c i n 9 u I a r ,.
WIRELESS
View of Site From J Street Looking South
View of Site Looking Northwest from Hilltop Ave.
5D-864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church
3':1
Page 5
j< cingular"
WUtElESS
View of Proposed Cingular MonoPalm and Shelter Building To Match Existing
SD-864-01 Hilltop Baptist Church
'-f~
Page 6
Attachment 2
Antenna Specifications
'-1-/
. .
.
VERTICAL PRODUCT DATA SHEETS
EMS
'J;n.h',~,,,,
RV65.18.XXDP
Vertical Polarization
1850 MHz -1990 MHz
, OptiRange'M
Electrical Specifications
Azimuth Beamwidth
Elevation Beamwidth
Gain
Polarization
Front-to-Back Ratio
Electrical Downtilt Options
VSWR
Connectors
Power Handling
Passive Intermodulation
Lightning Protection
650
60
17.5 dBi (15.4 dBd)
Linear, Vertical
~ 28 dB (~30 dB Typ.)
00,20,40,6<1
1.35:1 Max
1; 7-16 DIN (female)
250 Wafts CW
S -150 dBc
[2 x 20W (+ 43 dBm)]
Chassis Ground
2.75-
.....' ............8..
J'-...................r .
, "'- /\
~ / I
I
I
I
I
56"
I
'-
. ,
-,
,
l ;;
.;~:
./
I'D 42"
hi.:} .
1;;;;-1 '
/ ~~N
RF /
CONNECTOR _I
Rated Wind Velocity
Equivalent Flat Plate Area
Front Wind Load @ 100 mph (161 kph)
Side Wind Load @ 100 mph {161 kph)
Weight
56 in x 8 in x 2.75 in
(142 em x 20.3 cm x 7.0 cm)
150 mph (241 km/hr)
3.1ft'(.29m')
90 Ibs (400 N)
31Ibs(139N)
18 Ibs (8.2 kg)
Mechanical Specifications
Dimensions (L x W x D)
Mounting Options
MTG-POO-10, MTG-S02-10, MTG-DXX-20', MTG.CXX-10', MTG-C02-10, MTG-TXX-10'
Note: 'Model number shown represenls a series of products. See Mounting Options section for specific model number.
Patterns
~'<r'
270'
j;O'
210'
,70'
.
~
,.
~
..
..
Azjmuth
Elevation
00 Downtll!
Elevation
20 Downtilt
Elevation
40 Downtilt
Elevation
60 Downlill
Revised 05/15/02
+1770.582.0555 exl5310. Fax +1770.729.0036
WW\N.emswireless.com
VL
Appendix A
EMS Wireless Model # RV-65-l8-00-DP
Reference Location: Ground Level
Exposure Calculation AGL 6 ft.
Radiation Center 38 ft. AGL
Max ERP 800 Watts
l,t3
-.
-
OJ
OJ
...
"'~
II "
~<tf.
"...
<tf. ~
",'"
"'~
;>-'"
" ....
- "
OJ ~
.... ~
'" "
"'U
o
eo'"
~ .s
OJ ...
-;:: .~
0-0
.~ c::
.:: ~
-0
"
~
I _______----~
I <=>
<=> <=>
\r> ~
~ <=>
<=> 0
o
<=>
<=>
~
....
-'-
<=>
<=>
'<!'
....
<=>
<=>
....
....
<=>
<=>
<=>
....
...
"
.;!.
'"
.~
<=>
<=>
....
<=>
~
<=>
~
....
<=>
~
<=>
tJI7!/M-tJI
.
4-"{
..
'"
'"
"
...
'"
"
....
o
"
'"
"
:;;.
o
...
"
"
'"
"
-'
".
'p
4:
'"
"
c
'"
0-
~
<=>
<=>
~
<=>
<=>
-<!'
o
<=>
....
<=>
<=>
g
o
<=>
,;,
ARL I 32 IMax gain: I 15.4
Max exposure: 10.001977841 mW/cm 2
Max ERP:
800 Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Feet to Depress
Ant. base angle
Radiation exposure level
Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
gain max ERP in em in mW
Level
mW!cm 2
Precent of
FCC STD
0 90.000 -10 -25.4 975.36 2307.2252 0.00127 tJ.12661
1 88.210 -8.4 -23.8 975.84 3334.9551 0.00183 0.18282
2 86.424 -10.3 -25.7 977 .26 2153.2278 0.00118 0.11770
3 84.644 -12.8 -28.2 979.64 1210.8490 0.00066 0.06586
4 82.875 -12.9 -28.3 982.95 1183.2867 0.00064 0.06393
5 81.119 -15.7 -31.1 987.19 620.9977 0.00033 0.03326
6 79.380 -17.1 -32.5 992.36 449.8731 0.00024 0.02385
7 77.661 -21.2 -36.6 998.42 175.0209 0.00009 0.00917
8 75.964 -20.4 -35.8 1005.38 210.4214 0.00011 0.Q1 087
9 74.291 -19.2 -34.6 1013.20 277.3895 0.00014 0.01411
10 72.646 -17.7 -33.1 1021.88 391.8231 0.00020 0.01959
11 71.030 -19.7 -35.1 1031.38 247.2236 0.00012 0.01213
12 69.444 -12 -27.4 1041.68 1455.7607 0.00070 0.07003
13 67.891 -9.9 -25.3 1052.77 2360.9674 0.00111 0.11120
14 66.371 -10.8 -26.2 1064.62 1919.0663 0.00088 0.08839
15 64.885 -7.2 -22.6 1077.20 4396.3270 0.00198 0.19778
16 63.435 -7.9 -23.3 1090.49 3741.8811 0.00164 0.16426
17 62.021 -7.7 -23.1 1104.45 3918.2306 0.00168 0.16768
18 60.642 -8.2 -23.6 1119.08 3492.1267 0.00146 0.14557
19 59.300 -8.8 -24.2 1134.33 3041.5152 0.00123 0.12340
20 57.995 -10.2 -25.6 1150.19 2203.3830 0.00087 0.08694
21 56.725 -13.1 -28.5 1166.63 1130.0300 0.00043 0.04334
22 55.491 -21.8 -37.2 1183.63 152.4369 0.00006 0.00568
23 54.293 -24.5 -39.9 1201.16 81.8634 0.00003 0.00296
24 53.130 -24.6 -40 1219.20 80.0000 0.00003 0.00281
25 52.001 -13 -28.4 1237.73 1156.3518 0.00039 0.03940
26 50.906 -9.3 -24.7 1256.72 2710.7532 0.00090 0.08960
27 49.844 -10.4 -25.8 1276.16 2104.2144 0.00067 0.06745
28 48.814 -7.7 -23.1 1296.03 3918.2306 0.00122 0.12177
29 47.816 -9.6 -25 1316.30 2529.8221 0.00076 0.07622
30 46.848 -15.1 -30.5 1336.96 713.0008 0.00021 0.02082
31 45.909 -14 -29.4 1357.99 918.5229 0.00026 0.02600
32 45.000 -14 -29.4 1379.37 918.5229 0.00025 0.02520
33 44.119 -14.1 -29.5 1401.09 897.6148 0.00024 0.02387
34 43.264 -11.3 -26.7 1423.13 1710.3697 0.00044 0.04409
35 42.436 -9.3 -24.7 1445.47 2710.7532 0.00068 0.06773
36 41.634 -7.6 -23 1468.11 4009.4979 0.00097 0.09711
37 40.855 -8.1 -23.5 1491.03 3573.4687 0.00084 0.08391
ttS-
Apdx. A Page 1
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARL\ 32 !Maxgain:! 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW/cm 2
Max ERP: BOO Ant type: EMS RV65-1B-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
W
Level
Precent of
"
Ant. base angle oain max ERP in em mm mW!cm - FCC STD
38 40.101 -8.1 -23.5 1514.21 3573.4687 0.00081 0.08136
39 39.369 -11.1 -26.5 1537.65 1790.9769 0.00040 0.03954
40 38.660 -11.8 -27.2 1561.34 1524.3686 0.00033 0.03264
41 37.972 -17.2 -32.6 1585.25 439.6327 0.00009 D.00913
42 37.304 -17.2 -32.6 1609.39 439.6327 0.00009 0.00886
43 36.656 -18.6 -34 1633.74 318.4857 0.00006 0.00623
44 36.027 -18.6 -34 1658.29 318.4857 0.00006 0.00605
45 35.417 -14.1 -29.5 1683.04 897.6148 0.00017 0.01654
46 34.824 -8.7 -24.1 1707.97 3112.3612 0.00056 0.05570
47 34.249 -8.7 -24.1 1733.08 3112.3612 0.00054 0.05409
48 33.690 -5.3 -20.7 1758.36 6809.1043 0.00115 0.11497
49 33.147 -5.3 -20.7 1783.80 6809. 1 043 0.00112 0.11171
50 32.619 -5.3 -20.7 1809.39 6809.1043 0.00109 0.10857
51 32.106 -5.3 -20.7 1835.14 6809.1043 0.00106 0.10555
52 31.608 -6.2 -21.6 1861.03 5534.6478 0.00083 0.08342
53 31.122 -6.2 -21.6 1887.05 5534.6478 0.00081 0.08114
54 30.651 -6.3 -21.7 1913.21 5408.6638 0.00077 0.07714
55 30.192 -6.3 -21.7 1939.50 5408.6638 0.00075 0.07506
56 29.745 -9.8 -25.2 1965.90 2415.9614 0.00033 0.03263
57 29.310 -9.8 -25.2 1992.42 2415.9614 0.00032 0.03177
58 28.887 -16.4 -31.8 2019.06 528.5548 0.00007 0.00677
59 28.474 -16.4 -31.8 2045.80 528.5548 0.00007 0.00659
60 28.072 -16.4 -31.8 2072.64 528.5548 0.00006 0.00642
61 27.681 -14.2 -29.6 2099.58 877.1826 0.00010 0.01039
62 27.300 -14.2 -29.6 2126.62 877.1826 0.00010 0.01013
63 26.928 -9.2 -24.6 2153.75 2773.8948 0.00031 0.03122
64 26.565 -9.2 -24.6 2180.97 2773.8948 0.00030 0.03044
65 26.211 -9.2 -24.6 2208.28 2773.8948 0.00030 0.02969
66 25.866 -6.1 -21.5 2235.66 5663.5663 0.00059 0.05915
67 25.530 -6.1 -21.5 2263.13 5663.5663 0.00058 0.05773
68 25.201 -6.1 -21.5 2290.67 5663.5663 0.00056 0.05635
69 24.880 -4.4 -19.8 2318.28 8377.0284 0.00081 0.08137
70 24.567 -4.4 -19.8 2345.97 8377 .0284 0.00079 0.07946
71 24.261 -4.4 -19.8 2373.72 8377 .0284 0.00078 0.07761
72 23.962 -4.5 -19.9 2401.55 8186.3439 0.00074 0.07410
73 23.671 -4.5 -19.9 2429.43 8186.3439 0.00072 0.07241
74 23.385 -4.5 -19.9 2457.38 8186.3439 0.00071 0.07077
75 23.106 -4.5 -19.9 2485.38 8186.3439 0.00069 0.06918
76 22.834 -7 -22.4 2513.45 4603.5195 0.00038 0.03804
77 22.567 -7 -22.4 2541.56 4603.5195 0.00037 0.03720
78 22.306 -7 -22.4 2569.74 4603.5195 0.00036 0.03639
V-ro
Apdx. A Page 2
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARLI 32 !Maxgain:! 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW!cm 2
Max ERP: 800 Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
W
Level
2
Precent of
Ant. base anole Gain max ERP in em mm mW!cm FCC STD
79 22.051 -7 -22.4 2597.96 4603.5195 0.00036 0.03561
80 21.801 -16.1 -31.5 2626.24 566.3566 0.00004 0.00429
81 21.557 -16.1 -31.5 2654.56 566.3566 0.00004 0.00420
82 21.318 -16.1 -31.5 2682.93 566.3566 0.00004 0.00411
83 21.084 -16.1 -31.5 2711.35 566.3566 0.00004 0.00402
84 20.854 -14.2 -29.6 2739.81 877.1826 0.00006 0.00610
85 20.630 -14.2 -29.6 2768.32 877.1826 0.00006 0.00598
86 20.410 -14.2 -29.6 2796.86 877.1826 0.00006 0.00585
87 20.194 -14.2 -29.6 2825.45 877.1826 0.00006 0.00574
88 19.983 -7.8 -23.2 2854.07 3829.0407 0.00025 0.02454
89 19.776 -7.8 -23.2 2882.74 3829.0407 0.00024 0.02405
90 19.573 -7.8 -23.2 2911.44 3829.0407 0.00024 0.02358
91 19.374 -7.8 -23.2 2940.17 3829.0407 0.00023 0.02312
92 19.179 -7.8 -23.2 2968.95 3829.0407 0.00023 0.02268
93 18.988 -2.9 -18.3 2997.75 11832.8671 0.00069 0.06874
94 18.800 -2.9 -18.3 3026.59 11832.8671 0.00067 0.06743
95 18.616 -2.9 -18.3 3055.46 11832.8671 0.00066 0.06617
96 18.435 -2.9 -18.3 3084.36 11832.8671 0.00065 0.06493
97 18.258 -2.9 -18.3 3113.29 11832.8671 0.00064 0.06373
98 18.083 -2.9 -18.3 3142.25 11832.8671 0.00063 0.06256
99 17.913 -0.3 -15.7 3171.24 21532.2784 0.00112 0.11177
100 17.745 -0.3 -15.7 3200.25 21532.2784 0.00110 0.10975
101 17.580 -0.3 -15.7 3229.30 21532.2784 0.00108 0.10779
102 17.418 -0.3 -15.7 3258.37 21532.2784 0.00106 0.10587
103 17.259 -0.3 -15.7 3287.46 21532.2784 0.00104 0.10401
104 17.103 -0.3 -15.7 3316.58 21532.2784 0.00102 0.10219
105 16.949 -2.1 -17.5 3345.73 14226.2353 0.00066 0.06634
106 16.798 -2.1 -17.5 3374.89 14226.2353 0.00065 0.06520
107 16.650 -2.1 -17.5 3404.09 14226.2353 0.00064 0.06409
108 16.504 -2.1 -17.5 3433.30 14226.2353 0.00063 0.06300
109 16.361 -2.1 -17.5 3462.53 14226.2353 0.00062 0.06194
110 16.220 -2.1 -17.5 3491.79 14226.2353 0.00061 0.06091
111 16.082 -2.1 -17.5 3521.07 14226.2353 0.00060 0.05990
112 15.945 -3.4 -18.8 3550.36 10546.0539 0.00044 0.04368
113 15.811 -3.4 -18.8 3579.68 10546.0539 0.00043 0.04296
114 15.680 -3.4 -18.8 3609.02 10546.0539 0.00042 0.04227
115 15.550 -3.4 -18.8 3638.37 10546.0539 0.00042 0.04159
116 15.422 -3.4 -18.8 3667.75 10546.0539 0.00041 0.04092
117 15.297 -3.4 -18.8 3697.14 10546.0539 0.00040 0.04028
118 15.173 -3.4 -18.8 3726.55 10546.0539 0.00040 0.03964
119 15.051 -3.4 -18.8 3755.97 10546.0539 0.00039 0.03902
,+j
Apdx. A Page 3
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARL I 32 I Max gain: I 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW!cm 2
Max ERP:
800
Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
Level
2
Precent of
Ant. base anole oain max ERP in em inmW mW/cm FCC STD
120 14.931 -5.8 -21.2 3785.41 6068.6206 0.00022 0.02211
121 14.813 -5.8 -21.2 3814.87 6068.6206 0.00022 0.02177
122 14.697 -5.8 -21.2 3844.35 6068.6206 0.00021 ,0.02144
123 14.583 -5.8 -21.2 3873.84 6068.6206 0.00021 0.02111
124 14.470 -5.8 -21.2 3903.34 6068.6206 0.00021 0.02079
125 14.359 -5.8 -21.2 3932.87 6068.6206 0.00020 0.02048
126 14.250 -5.8 -21.2 3962.40 6068.6206 0.00020 0.02018
127 14.142 -5.8 -21.2 3991.95 6068.6206 0.00020 0.01988
128 14.036 -5.8 -21.2 4021.51 6068.6206 0.00020 0.01959
129 13.932 -9.3 -24.7 4051.09 2710.7532 0.00009 0.00862
130 13.829 -9.3 -24.7 4080.68 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00850
131 13.727 -9.3 -24.7 4110.28 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00838
132 13.627 -9.3 -24.7 4139.90 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00826
133 13.528 -9.3 -24.7 4169.53 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00814
134 13.431 -9.3 -24.7 4199.17 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00803
135 13.335 -9.3 -24.7 4228.82 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00791
136 13.241 -9.3 -24.7 4258.48 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00780
137 13.147 -9.3 -24.7 4288.16 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00770
138 13.055 -9.3 -24.7 4317.84 2710.7532 0.00008 0.00759
139 12.965 -3.2 -18.6 4347.54 11043.0741 0.00030 0.03050
140 12.875 -3.2 -18.6 4377.25 11043.0741 0.00030 0.03009
141 12.787 -3.2 -18.6 4406.97 11043.0741 0.00030 0.02968
142 12.700 -3.2 -18.6 4436.70 11043.0741 0.00029 0.02929
143 12.614 -3.2 -18.6 4466.44 11043.0741 0.00029 0.02890
144 12.529 -3.2 -18.6 4496.19 11043.0741 0.00029 0.02852
145 12.445 -3.2 -18.6 4525.95 11043.0741 0.00028 0.02814
146 12.362 -3.2 -18.6 4555.71 11043.0741 0.00028 0.02778
147 12.281 -3.2 -18.6 4585.49 11043.0741 0.00027 0.02742
148 12.200 -3.2 -18.6 4615.28 11043.0741 0.00027 0.02706
149 12.121 -3.2 -18.6 4645.08 11043.0741 0.00027 0.02672
150 12.043 -3.2 -18.6 4674.88 11043.0741 0.00026 0.02638
151 11.965 0.6 -14.8 4704.69 26490.4897 0.00062 0.06248
152 11.889 0.6 -14.8 4734.52 26490.4897 0.00062 0.06169
153 11.813 0.6 -14.8 4764.35 26490.4897 0.00061 0.06092
154 11.739 0.6 -14.8 4794.19 26490.4897 0.00060 0.06017
155 11.665 0.6 -14.8 4824.03 26490.4897 0.00059 0.05942
156 11.592 0.6 -14.8 4853.89 26490.4897 0.00059 0.05870
157 11.520 0.6 -14.8 4883.75 26490.4897 0.00058 0.05798
158 11.449 0.6 -14.8 4913.62 26490.4897 0.00057 0.05728
159 11.379 0.6 -14.8 4943.50 26490.4897 0.00057 0.05659
160 11.310 0.6 -14.8 4973.38 26490.4897 0.00056 0.05591
l./3
Apdx. A Page 4
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARL I 32 I Max gain: I 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW/cm 2
Max ERP:
800
Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
Level
Precent of
2
Ant. base anole oain max ERP in em inmW mWlcm FCC STD
161 11.241 0.6 -14.8 5003.27 26490.4897 0.00055 0.05524
162 11.174 0.6 -14.8 5033.17 26490.4897 0.00055 0.05459
163 11.107 0.6 -14.8 5063.08 26490.4897 0.00054 0.05395
164 11.041 0.6 -14.8 5092.99 26490.4897 0.00053 0.05331
165 10.976 3 -12.4 5122.91 46035.1950 0.00092 0.09157
166 10.911 3 -12.4 5152.83 46035.1950 0.00091 0.09051
167 10.847 3 -12.4 5182.77 46035.1950 0.00089 0.08947
168 10.784 3 -12.4 5212.70 46035.1950 0.00088 0.08844
169 10.722 3 -12.4 5242.65 46035.1950 0.00087 0.08743
170 10.660 3 -12.4 5272.60 46035.1950 0.00086 0.08644
171 10.599 3 -12.4 5302.56 46035.1950 0.00085 0.08547
172 10.539 3 -12.4 5332.52 46035.1950 0.00085 0.08451
173 10.480 3 -12.4 5362.49 46035.1950 0.00084 0.08357
174 10.421 3 -12.4 5392.46 46035.1950 0.00083 0.08264
175 10.362 3 -12.4 5422.44 46035.1950 0.00082 0.08173
176 10.305 3 -12.4 5452.43 46035.1950 0.00081 0.08084
177 10.248 3 -12.4 5482.42 46035.1950 0.00080 0.07995
178 10.192 3 -12.4 5512.42 46035.1950 0.00079 0.07909
179 10.136 3 -12.4 5542.42 46035.1950 0.00078 0.07823
180 '10.081 3 -12.4 5572.42 46035.1950 0.00077 0.07739
181 10.026 3 -12.4 5602.44 46035.1950 0.00077 0.07656
182 9.972 2.8 -12.6 5632.45 43963.2699 0.00072 0.07234
183 9.919 2.8 -12.6 5662.48 43963.2699 0.00072 0.07158
184 9.866 2.8 -12.6 5692.50 43963.2699 0.00071 0.07082
185 9.814 2.8 -12.6 5722.53 43963.2699 0.00070 0.07008
186 9.762 2.8 -12.6 5752.57 43963.2699 0.00069 0.06935
187 9.711 2.8 -12.6 5782.61 43963.2699 0.00069 0.06863
188 9.660 2.8 -12.6 5812.66 43963.2699 0.00068 0.06793
189 9.610 2.8 -12.6 5842.71 43963.2699 0.00067 0.06723
190 9.560 2.8 -12.6 5872.76 43963.2699 0.00067 0.06654
191 9.511 2.8 -12.6 5902.82 43963.2699 0.00066 0.06587
201 9.046 2.8 -12.6 6203.63 43963.2699 0.00060 0.05963
211 8.624 2.2 -13.2 6504.82 38290.4074 0.00047 0.04724
221 8.239 2.2 -13.2 6806.33 38290.4074 0.00043 0.04315
231 7.887 -2.5 -17.9 7108.12 12974.4808 0.00013 0.01341
241 7.563 -2.5 -17.9 7410.15 12974.4808 0.00012 0.01233
251 7.265 -2.5 -17.9 7712.40 12974.4808 0.00011 0.01139
261 6.990 -5.9 -21.3 8014.85 5930.4819 0.00005 0.00482
271 6.734 -5.9 -21.3 8317.47 5930.4819 0.00004 0.00448
281 6.497 -5.9 -21.3 8620.24 5930.4819 0.00004 0.00417
291 6.275 -5.9 -21.3 8923.15 5930.4819 0.00004 0.00389
l{7
Apdx. A Page 5
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARLI 32 I Max gain: 1 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW/cm 2
Max ERP: 800 Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
Level
2
Precent of
Ant. base anole oain max ERP in em inmW mW/cm FCC STD
301 6.068 -5.9 -21.3 9226.18 5930.4819 0.00004 0.00364
311 5.875 2.6 -12.8 9529.33 41984.5968 0.00024 0.02414
321 5.693 2.6 -12.8 9832.58 41984.5968 0.00023 0.02267
331 5.522 2.6 -12.8 10135.92 41984.5968 0.00021 0:02133
341 5.361 2.6 -12.8 10439.34 41984.5968 0.00020 0.02011
351 5.209 2.6 -12.8 10742.85 41984.5968 0.00019 0.01899
361 5.066 2.6 -12.8 11046.42 41984.5968 0.00018 0.01796
371 4.930 8.1 -7.3 11350.07 148966.9709 0.00060 0.06037
381 4.801 8.1 -7.3 11653.77 148966.9709 0.00057 0.05726
391 4.679 8.1 -7.3 11957.53 148966.9709 0.00054 0.05439
401 4.563 8.1 -7.3 12261.34 148966.9709 0.00052 0.05173
411 4.452 8.1 -7.3 12565.19 148966.9709 0.00049 0.04925
421 4.347 8.1 -7.3 12869.09 148966.9709 0.00047 0.04696
431 4.246 8.1 -7.3 13173.04 148966.9709 0.00045 0.04481
441 4.150 8.1 -7.3 13477.02 148966.9709 0.00043 0.04282
451 4.059 8.1 -7.3 13781.04 148966.9709 0.00041 0.04095
461 3.971 11.5 -3.9 14085.09 325904.2222 0.00086 0.08576
471 3.887 11.5 -3.9 14389.18 325904.2222 0.00082 0.08217
481 3.806 11.5 -3.9 14693.29 325904.2222 0.00079 0.07880
491 3.729 11.5 -3.9 14997.43 325904.2222 0.00076 0.07564
501 3.655 11.5 -3.9 15301.60 325904.2222 0.00073 0.07266
511 3.583 11.5 -3.9 15605.79 325904.2222 0.00070 0.06986
521 3.515 11.5 -3.9 15910.01 325904.2222 0.00067 0.06721
531 3.449 11.5 -3.9 16214.24 325904.2222 0.00065 0.06471
541 3.385 11.5 -3.9 16518.50 325904.2222 0.00062 0.06235
551 3.324 11.5 -3.9 16822.78 325904.2222 0.00060 0.06012
561 3.265 11.5 -3.9 17127.08 325904.2222 0.00058 0.05800
571 3.208 11.5 -3.9 17431.39 325904.2222 0.00056 0.05599
581 3.153 11.5 -3.9 17735.72 325904.2222 0.00054 0.05409
591 3.099 11.5 -3.9 18040.07 325904.2222 0.00052 0.05228
601 3.048 11.5 -3.9 18344.43 325904.2222 0.00051 0.05056
611 2.998 13.4 -2 18648.80 504765.8756 0.00076 0.07577
621 2.950 13.4 -2 18953.19 504765.8756 0.00073 0.07335
631 2.903 13.4 -2 19257.60 504765.8756 0.00071 0.07105
641 2.858 13.4 -2 19562.01 504765.8756 0.00069 0.06886
651 2.814 13.4 -2 19866.44 504765.8756 0.00067 0.06676
661 2.772 13.4 -2 20170.88 504765.8756 0.00065 0.06476
671 2.730 13.4 -2 20475.32 504765.8756 0.00063 0.06285
681 2.690 13.4 -2 20779.78 504765.8756 0.00061 0.06102
691 2.651 13.4 -2 21084.25 504765.8756 0.00059 0.05927
701 2.614 13.4 -2 21388.73 504765.8756 0.00058 0.05760
).0
Apdx. A Page 6
EMS RV65-18-00DP
ARL 1 32 1 Max gain: I 15.4
Max exposure: I 0.001977841 mW/cm 2
Max ERP:
800 Ant type: EMS RV65-18-00DP
Feet from site:
15
Radiation exposure level
Feet to Depress Antenna dB from Prop dist Act ERP
Level
Precent of
2
Ant. base anqle qain max ERP in em inmW mW/cm FCC STD
711 2.577 13.4 -2 21693.22 504765.8756 0.00056 0.05599
721 2.541 13.4 -2 21997.71 504765.8756 0.00054 0.05445
731 2.507 13.4 -2 22302.22 504765.8756 0.00053 -0.05298
741 2.473 13.4 -2 22606.73 504765.8756 0.00052 0.05156
751 2.440 13.4 -2 22911.25 504765.8756 0.00050 0.05020
761 2.408 13.4 -2 23215.78 504765.8756 0.00049 0.04889
771 2.377 13.4 -2 23520.31 504765.8756 0.00048 0.04763
781 2.346 13.4 -2 23824.85 504765.8756 0.00046 0.04642
791 2.317 13.4 -2 24129.40 504765.8756 0.00045 0.04526
801 2.288 13.4 -2 24433.96 504765.8756 0.00044 0.04414
811 2.260 13.4 -2 24738.52 504765.8756 0.00043 0.04306
821 2.232 13.4 -2 25043.08 504765.8756 0.00042 0.04202
831 2.205 13.4 -2 25347.65 504765.8756 0.00041 0.04101
841 2.179 13.4 -2 25652.23 504765.8756 0.00040 0.04004
851 2.153 13.4 -2 25956.81 504765.8756 0.00039 0.03911
861 2.128 13.4 -2 26261.40 504765.8756 0.00038 0.03821
871 2.104 13.4 -2 26565.99 504765.8756 0.00037 0.03734
881 2.080 13.4 -2 26870.59 504765.8756 0.00036 0.03649
891 2.057 13.4 -2 27175.19 504765.8756 0.00036 0.03568
901 2.034 13.4 -2 27479.80 504765.8756 0.00035 0.03489
911 2.012 13.4 -2 27784.41 504765.8756 0.00034 0.03413
921 1.990 14.8 -0.6 28089.02 696770.8720 0.00046 0.04610
931 1.969 14.8 -0.6 28393.64 696770.8720 0.00045 0.04512
941 1.948 14.8 -0.6 28698.26 696770.8720 0.00044 0.04416
951 1.927 14.8 -0.6 29002.89 696770.8720 0.00043 0.04324
961 1.907 14.8 -0.6 29307.51 696770.8720 0.00042 0.04235
971 1.888 14.8 -0.6 29612.15 696770.8720 0.00041 0.04148
981 1.868 14.8 -0.6 29916.78 696770.8720 0.00041 0.04064
991 1.849 14.8 -0.6 30221.42 696770.8720 0.00040 0.03982
1001 1.831 14.8 -0.6 30526.07 696770.8720 0.00039 0:03903
1011 1.813 14.8 -0.6 30830.71 696770.8720 0.00038 0.03827
1021 1.795 14.8 -0.6 31135.36 696770.8720 0.00038 0.03752
1031 1.778 14.8 -0.6 31440.01 696770.8720 0.00037 0.03680
1041 1.761 14.8 -0.6 31744.67 696770.8720 0.00036 0.03609
1051 1.744 14.8 -0.6 32049.33 696770.8720 0.00035 0.03541
1061 1.728 14.8 -0.6 32353.99 696770.8720 0.00035 0.03475
1071 1.711 14.8 -0.6 32658.65 696770.8720 0.00034 0.03410
1081 1.696 14.8 -0.6 32963.31 696770.8720 0.00033 0.03348
1091 1.680 14.8 -0.6 33267.98 696770.8720 0.00033 0.03286
1101 1.665 14.8 -0.6 33572.65 696770.8720 0.00032 0.03227
1111 1.650 14.8 -0.6 33877.32 696770.8720 0.00032 0.03169
~I
Apdx. A Page 7
EMS RV65-18-00DP
STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE
Jerrold Talmadge Bushberg, Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM
PRESENT APPOINTMENT
PRESENT ADDRESS
Clinical Professor,
Department of Radiology
School of Medicine
Director, Health Physics Programs
Department of Envirorunental
Health & Safety
University of California, Davis
University of California, Davis
2315 Stockton Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95817
(916)734-5620 (work)
(916) 734-3956 (fax)
jtbushberg@ucdavis.edu (e-mail)
EDUCATION
1981
Ph.D.
Radiological and Health Physics,
Purdue University Department of
Bionucleonics
1979
U.s. Department of Energy
National Training Fellowship
Yale University, Department of
Radiology and Mayo Clinic
Departments of Health and
Medical Physics
1978-1980
M.s.
Radiological Physics
Purdue University; Department of
Bionucleonics
1971-1975
B.s.
Physiology
University of California, Davis
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
Effect of 2450 MHZ Continuous Wave Microwave Radiation and Isothermal Conduction
on Canine Platelet Aggregometry, Survival and Margination. Purdue University, 1981.
~-:L 1
LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION
Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics.
Certification in Medical Health Physics, 1991.
Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics.
Certification in Nuclear Medicine Physics, 1991.
Diplomate, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine.
Comprehensive and Specialty Certification in Health Physics
and Radiation Biology, 1990.
International Healthcare Safety Professional Certification Board
International Institute of Safety and Health, 1981
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - SUMMARY
1999-Present
Clinical Professor, Department of Radiology, School of
Medicine, Director of Health Physics Programs, Department of
Environmental Health & Safety, University of California, Davis
1992-1999
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine,
Director of Health Physics Programs, Department of Environmental Health
& Safety, University of California, Davis
1995-1999
Commander/Radiation Science Officer & Command Technical
Advisor United States Naval Reserve Medical Services Corps
Office of the Chief of Naval Research (CBRD 120)
1983-Present
Consultant, Radiological Emergency Management, Department of
Diagnostic Radiology & Emergency Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine
1991-1994
Lieutenant Commander/Radiation Science Officer
United States Naval Reserve, Medical Service Corps
1991-1992
Clinical Associate Professor, Technical Director of Nuclear Medicine, School
of Medicine, UCD and UCDMC Radiation Safety Officer, University of
California, Davis
1988-1992
Chairman, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Emergency Planning
Executive Appointment: Governor George Deukmejian, State of
California
53
2
1989-1991
Clinical Associate Professor, Technical Director of Nuclear Medicine and
UCDMC Radiation Safety Officer, School of Medicine,
University of California, Davis
1984-1990
Lieutenant/Radiation Science Officer
United States Naval Reserve, Medical Service Corps
1983-1989
Assistant Professor, Technical Director of Nuclear Medicine,
and UCDMC Radiation Safety Officer, School of Medicine
University of California, Davis
1982-1984
Adjunct Faculty-Consultant
Emergency Management Institute
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Emergency Training Center
1981-1983
Assistant Professor
Section of Nuclear Medicine
Department of Diagnostic Radiology
Yale University School of Medicine
1981-1983
Advisor, Radiological Health and Emergency Response
Office of the Governor, State of Connecticut
1979-1983
Consultant, Health Effects Branch
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1979-1981
Graduate Instructor - Academic Advisor
Department of Bionucleonics
Purdue University
1978-1979
Radiological Control Intern
Department of Bionucleonics
Purdue University
1977-1978
Lecturer - Senior Research Associate
Section of Nuclear Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine
1975-1977
Instructor-Staff Research Associate II
Departments of Chemistry and Nuclear Medicine
Stanford University and V. A. Medical Center
Palo Alto, California
r;;y
3
Dr. Jerrold Bushberg is an expert in both health physics and medical physics. He is currently
employed at the University of California at Davis as Director of Health Physics Programs which
includes the campus, medical center and 16 offsite research field stations throughout California.
The UCD Health Physics program is the second largest non-federal program in the state. In
addition, he also holds an appointment as a Clinical Professor of Radiology, at the UC Davis
School of Medicine with primary responsibility for medical postgraduate courses in medical
physics, radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) protection, and radiation biology. In addition,
Dr. Bushberg has extensive experience and lectures on the science of Risk Assessment and on
Effective Risk Communication in the public sector.
Dr. Bushberg's doctoral dissertation at Purdue University wason various aspects oj the biological
effects of microwave radiation. He has' maintained a strong professional interest in this subject
and has served as consultant or appeared as an expert witness on this subject to a wide variety
of organizations/institutions including, local governments, school districts, planning
departments, telecommunications companies, the California Public Utilities Commission, ABC
20/20, and the U.5. Congress. In addition, his consultation services have included detailed
computer based modeling of RF exposures as well as on-site safety inspections and RF field
measurements of numerous wireless transmissions facility in order to determine their compliance
with FCC safety regulations.
Dr. Bushberg is a member of the main scientific body of International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) which reviews and evaluates the scientific literature on the
biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and establishes exposure standards.
He also serves on the ICES Risk Assessment Working Group that is responsible for evaluating
and characterizing the risks of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Bushberg was
appointed and is serving as a member of the main scientific council of the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement's (NCRP) as well as it's scientific advisory committee on
Radiation Protection in Medicine. The NCRP is the nation's preeminent scientific radiation
protection organization, chartered by Congress to evaluate and provide expert consultation on
a wide variety of radiological health issues. Dr. Bushbergwas also appoiIited to the International
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) which
has as its primary area of interest the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy,
examining and interpreting the biological effects, and presenting its findings in an authoritative
and professional manner.
Dr. Bushberg's position as Director of Health Physics Programs at UC Davis is particularly
pertinent. The scientific discipline of Health Physics is devoted to radiation protection, which,
among other things, involves providing analysis of radiation exposure conditions, biological
effects research, regulations and standards as well as recommendations regarding the use and
safety of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Dr. Bushberg is the senior scientist/health
physicist at the University of California, Davis for which the evaluation of recent scientific
literature and radiation safety standards is an integral part of his position.
Dr. Bushberg received both a Masters of Science and Ph. D. from the Department of Bionucleonics
at Purdue University. Dr. Bushberg is certified by several national professional boards with
specific sub-specialty certification in radiation protection and medical physics. Prior to coming
to the University of California, Davis, Dr. Bushberg was on the faculty of Yale University School
of Medicine.
~
4
~",","'~"~""'''"'''
..'..."'."".""'''''
S<>J"'JaSSY
mnllOO'G
tQI
--
I-
en
......1- Q
Oo...I!M~
~<(O~<3
(D1Da: ~<t
00 0... ::> ~ tll
I OI ~~
Oen I- 0 ~~
--' "I
--' <J
I
.
.
L",
'"
ro~
w
II:
::J~
m
c
--
u
,j'ej"n6UF'
~ n
d~~~~
~ ~~~di
~ ~~~~~~
i
> to ~ ~
I ~ ; !
'I '
: id !
, ,; ii!'
. ,~ ~ ~ ~ i
. '1"/'
~ ~ II' I' &
i Iilh!!i
,!.i '!;!
II ~ ! ! : !!
.
111 'i!
~Ii~! I,;h
\"'11,1
!\,Ii 1!1.1d
~31m
: -.:.::::::::.,....... !
UOIIIUM O~!
. ----., 1.-,.
..____..._..-- 1
- _... - I ,
"~wa ;In... I
II
LL
."",.,..........,
--....-."
H:>!fK)
.lSlldV8 dOl TIH
I
I
!
I
I
i
!
Ii!! I
II ! I!
jl
ill
Ii
1r'-~
llobe
I ']^vVlI:J'I'
I!Obis..
I Di~ ~
[
I
I
I 11
I 'i
~;
~
~
tj. I C
Q:j.~J
~~"-.
"",-
. I
---"L~
/
II
r
ill!
u~ ~
II!!!
i'i'l
,1,\.
mil
;1',1;
~ g ~~
. . , . I'
. .
I I I I I
b'. '. '.! '.! '.1
~ " I' II".' I", I",
o . ~ ~ ii~. ~~ g~.
~ Ii!! tll! ~IIU ~II!I ill!!
Hi! i
~ ,,' d 'I
8 illli,
~ nlini
~ 11111111
! \'
. ,!
. " I
! !" ~
~ ;~ t
ij ;! 'I
I, II Ii
'I ,- .
! " II
II '!,II
~ ~illh ii
~ II! ,n 'I
~ i',1 fi;,'!J
i ! 11. ~n
i
L .!
II ft h ~ IHi
I
11
'.
ih
Ii!
< '~ ~ I
" .
~ ,i; g ;
", ~ ':: ~ .
I ' " ,i
~ L!!ldJi1 J
I
~
.";:'-';"~::""
IEI--:I -:;:;1:1::: :'...-! i!11
nO"IAlW O~,
. ----.oN'.
"" ...__~, i
- - _.. "" I !
';u"o ~n..,
I -,. - I
~'~~::,~'.;:',::::~
_~.>,,,,x.>""'1-'
010"'-'0'(/ .j'ej"n6u!:>
tQ)
H:J!n;:)
lBUdV!J dO.!. TIH
II_I'
NY1d NCIU..'r.TW1.:iUS
--
><0
.1 ~ :;
Ii I !I
II! I Ii Ii
-rr~J ~ - - - \ - TI- l\ - - - - - - - rl-/.::c0
lidDC:V D \ LJ D \ - ./,1
~I r,~, '" , n n n n D i \ / 1
r~~[~ I 111uuuLJD ' \!-~
.
I ,3N~dM1IH I
\chnllll' .
I I D:uoDPej, ~ ~ 10 I
I I.~. u_1' 1 Ib' . v ~ I
1 I Oli u,~v~1 I
I I! : CJ ~ 0 I !' I
I II I u_--'- -j 0 I I r ~[j~l
OlD D:= D =~'30~JI ~'B-:::0' D~~1ul)D'u.:.j1
I 6F r r-'~- u__, ,
1.'-'-'1 I,[JI 'I' 1 0 f-u_ui
- ...J r-tJ''''1 0 I
DID Pi I.-L- I 2J r- _u_
" """ ,,"co I; I . 1/, ili ! [] o_u.., 0 I
~l= u~ D~ " u_ '1 Ii Ii Iii 11' r-, .0:' D-u~ --1
Df],.-j D 0 : It Ii ili ,,~ ~ Il_
. '-~~-j ~DI CJ ~_ _ I,,!~ Ii' f- 8 ~ _uJ L..J I
1-"=, 0:, " ...JD"IIII 11f.--[] ~ [Ls-U-[}l
aCL~ ~~Dl'-""] ~{I- J~:::L +u.J ?1 I ~ ~. Oou- -1 D-8~
.~_ "';I~ \1 \ / L' I __ m"-J
IU_~ nc;;:::Jr'4 .' I I tJ rdJu1 0 I
'l-LrQ T~ .J( ;1 ~L~ r - J 1 ,-^,i Co;C-l
ii. ii!!. i!!
!iI !I U II
r
rrm
t4
i j'j
: 11
:j
"
I'
~ !(
. I'
. '/
! : ~
~ 1
~ I
ill
II
,
I .",
I"
: ___1_' II . I
_ _.., -I
_no"".. - -'~' "', .1
___ 0 d
~ ...:::--.:::':::::: N'.
'a1~c an.., - I ,;
0"
--
~ ~,-,::,~,:.~gK{~~~ I
"'''''U(/I(J
""'....
"':':'~~YWQ
~
.lSlLN13 dO~'T1IH
,~
.j'iij'n6up
lJ!II
---
<J,., I-
~ I~
'~
i.
Ii
II
-1~ - _3^'"O dOn-Ie - -
i--n I
.: j .~;-n=_,;;_n_ =1=
:,I~I' '\J,jl..C~' ,c.,,- 0 ~I-~-:J
I':', II "",,,,I}c 0 0' >
I' ,l'.'" '."
, : 1 \' ,.r
, ' ; 1. ,,-J . ,
1..\ >0 I >.. ' I '---.;; 1 r ' '
, .. ' , . I ~,,:'--..j. ' "
, I 'I " " , ; I
IT' n L ,J ! ~ ! ! i (: f ' Iii:
'wr, - ~ ! ; ,J 'II
" , ,..,: .' i I ,-'
,,'
, ij! 'Ii
I' !I!
, 'j'
,. 1\
I:.!
I
_J
"'""'
../)
,Ii
',,"
!~
.,1111
Ii lib I,
\
\
I
I
I
.
'-z._._"
I
\
\
b
,
I
!
,
,
I
!
!
i
I
~
<Er
\
t
1-: d
I I Ii
\ I' .I!
.t j :-
, . ' ' "
',+ ii .,
'1.\ ' ./ ,~,
,', "'''' . n' ""nn'. ---/,
i I )', ~ ,\ --j~I--'--nc;;;;;~h.=_- n!...... ---~
II " I,J Ii
I~;! I II :' I,
! !. '. 11 ; Ie Ii li.4
I '; '. 'i I.i'! ,! '"
Ii II II Ii ii II II!
,
!
!
c:: -~'~-'- ~, ---_...
,
~
I~I
""'''' ~.._.,"",.on"""'TI'
., ",.". '.'GO,-",",,~~
<;"",.>os.y
umuoo'U
""""'"
...".,...,.......,
.........,......
.j'ii'lii6u!:>
H:JIr1-<::>
~ dOl.TJH
nil]
~~
[I
I:
I
---
I
j
, h .
'\.. .\
.~
,~
," iii I
Ii Ii!: I,
I l
,-
.
11. !
\!: ,
!! 'I I;
I. Ii Ii
,
., I
Ij "'
~,. ~~
s' Ii '
II Ii II
I j J II
/ ~ j'I;1
J ~ Ih I!
~~ ~ I\~d' U
.................... ->i'"'r
~~~ '0/ /~
~ :::.. ~ I~ ". ~I '" y
..........k~ ,-,' /
"
:::,c.---,-
- I
-"~
~'-v~.....i'
o
'([)
r;:
l!
"II
.i fi I
'II i!!'
!IWI
gil h:
ill IIi ~
I~
i
. ,_.,">>~' .,-,,,,.,~.,
",w.'" ",.".."",.~
".""'~O<>-F
""''''00'0
_j'ej'ii6u!:>
n1IJ
---
..--"'''''' ~~.
-","",.I>-...
-"'''''''''........
(I
I .!
!' ,
i "Ii
;,' i!!' il
!,Im!.,
EI !~. t ~o
Ihlli 1 ii
.,
!
l--~' '". g
<.~:.'.
....
""""<>3"13""",,",
.......,,,,,.,.....,
-..""'.....0.,
H::>Ii'lH"
.l.S1.1..cIV8 dOlll1H
, I
I 'I;
iilli! I II!
" II' I I!-
!I! IE; _ 'Iii
mUl1li!
II" ~
'~
~
~
--+- '
.. __",_'.....,.., 1It"""t-,! ~
. ---,-,......., I
'NO"UJ~ O~:
.. ---""""",., g.
. ----'N i
.... - _..... I ,
IJH'O JOIII
'0'
-.-
'N
I
II
I I
II
lL
-----,
,
!
II
! !
II
lL
.....
,
,
~
I ,I I
. ,'I
111'11 ,
i I~!
Iii iii !
~
;
-"''''''''''.0-'''
--"'-.0-'"
..-"'.... -',j.
j
~
~
~
~-'_."""" .-..""
..;m'''. ",.....uy,,""
'-,'"".-'o,rl-'
""'!I"a'a
.j'ej'ii6uF)
D!IJ
_,-.-0>0-'-
!
. !
i.
i I
! !
~
!
! !
! !
! i
I
'! I
~ ~: I
ii, !'.' ,
i,! 'I(!
ii, j,; I
II! II! ,
I L
,
.
"","v:>a131101BlX3
.."."-......,,
",_.....oot
H:J>n1"
l.SU.dV8 dOl"11lH
-
-
j
r
~~ (
, 'I i
1!1 !i,!
.j 1'1
~. il~ I
Ii! III!
i
~
. __n _.~. I.() !
. _M_. I
IMO'.'~iI~ O~,
.. ---........, , 8-
- ----. N. i
...... - , !
.i1"0Iln..' I
"-"''''''....~.
,
.
~'---,~
."".'---'...,
'..J
P~/--~I
~ , . ,
I~
i~
!~
,
IIO~'~O ""..,,,-,'"
'""-'.11.]\"
,<:alvpa,<:,<:V ..jlern6u~::>
O/VlIOO!{]
mil
_L'ns~/!DJNI9N] ~ ~
I-
(1)
or-I- w~
Oa...I>Oi
I <(O~(1
~(Da:~<
ex> a... ::J ~ tJ
I OI ~~
0(1) I- 0 ~5
..J " I
..J 0
-
I
:II
..
LVI
CU~
w
a::
:J~
m
C
e_
U
~ n
~ ~~
ih~n
~ g~d~~
i ~2~U~
I
1
,
I i
~ i ~ I
I ~ ~ ~
i :L i'
, !" i
! !ind
- !,". I ,
\!; :2! i :2 0 !
~ IHh!P
~ ii, i 91' i
n ! ~ ~ , ! !
8
! 11 'i'l
; i~! M,!!
ill,! ~'~I'~!
!hj~ ~!~!!!
. _..........OO/..~ .,...... I
.
. ..-... ",I<<Ifo I 0 ! ~
INOII.AiUI
<N _...~...""""",,~ l- s;
. _.....-...mIRI..1 i
- .~, ......."" .. j !
I".LYO ani"
l33-IS 3"UJJ.
o~ala '1:1 'Y1SI.\ YY1HO
~~JSll.NlldClL""'Ot'
H::>I:II1H~
lSUdV8 dOl TlIH
IO-ttV-QS
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I I I I I
~~ Ilj'~ I'j' III 'j,1 I i'j,1 'j',1
I,._~ hJ !IJl !IJl II i!
I, A!.! 1.1. I!.L jl~!t
.
$ g.
; I! ~!I
!' ,~ ~
ii ~I :j
d I; II
~~ .~ ;
!~ ,. ~I
h ~! Ig
! ~~I H ~~
;i ~I! I;
I- ~~! E'III.
~ ~~II ;ij ~d
~ ~ S ~18 m
!
i j
; i,
. ! I' ,in
Ilbl;~~~il:
.. 0 i i
~; .
.. '
C ,i;! ~. .
I, ! \ . ~ i i . i
~ ! h j h Id, I~ : ; t
, !
II II
II ! I !
Ii
r
~il !
nil!
:wj II
~II I'
!I, ~I
dl!:
I
I
!
I
1
i
i
I
,
~
,
i
~
~
Ii!! i
i i!! I 'I
Hi~I~Hi
j I ! ,~
11111 !I
!
~
ow~~ro
I.NYl11'1SNO~/II:3]IWN]
!I 'I'
i!1
I~ I
1r'Tk-T
~[;tc::l Dj
.3^V \fl~V:J
!I
'!
II
D
?:AV 'V1:>.:J'VV'i 31~OJ
p ::D~J
B' cD:
!'-~
o-_,~~,u
, CJ
~tT
,I
,1
i!1
I~
.<O.}/V.1JO.<O"'V
OJVuO(J .1(J
NY1d NOU..vzrun 3lJB
Mj1ern6u!:>
o,e,s v.J 'VISIII 'i1I'II<~
.~o dOl"nH Clot
H:)!!()H:J
lSUdV8 dOllllH
tUJ
-~
LO-I'Ii-OS
~
.. ....'010'" _ _ z""'" !
.. '--""""""0 I
8NOI8IA~W ~ ~
"_IIII~...tuI<oIG'ZN"
"D\3IIIIII~""''''''''''''''' i
-_...~ wwr"....." ,
8~J.WO in881
I i!
. II
! !
II I;
-0-\ Tr-~-------
D
DUD
]AI~a dOllllH
.' OcbOI ! I I :
.,_.~ nJ_-[ DD:~iCJ!
: D "'1 ' ~nL,.J
f--J.. n~
, : c==J : CJ 1
, r-n_n-L..:u---1 0
, ~ ,
'i!! mT-nln~
'I;i 0 : 0: rn!
> L-, -.In::i rL'I'..j c;jt J
hn_SJ.J' : !'~' ' - 00_00
r-~'.J b '0 !
'0'01 II ""00, .' '.. !
' , " r- I If Ii
' , : .. -dlllll; !I~
0:: : D ib...hi~:... ~~G
n~D! r------, I dH~DIi~ u!"
D i i '--.J ~nT''1!i~i !~~ lIil!
Woo ,:...JD"
, 11. I \,.-,' , ,
~~nL ~~~-+n.Jn/1
,c:::::::JI.....V. ,'1
~n-:n......, \1 \ /:
, c:::::J 1 L=::J' ~ . .
h.._nr--'~ ~'D!
,0, !,~
_In=L~n-.J(~:J
- - ~-;ct
I ~-~~ " "
, / \
, ,I
;' ,
.. 1
/
1
I
i 1
:. ..1
i (,=_;L'=Cfl
, ' 0
' . ' D
k-~,,-,,_J_n.7ln_' =-1
I ~ D ~ I
! P::..' 0 y/: D !
'I..J OL
Ln 'n~ D 'I
! D 2J -r: n_nJ
to 0-: D I
r-- D :;; 'O,_n--!-n_n'--j
, => J' c::::::L....
f-- 8 c-n-n : ---c..J !
: D ~ 1 D in-l
1-00 ,,~n_n_ 0
: D "u i'[H::r
~n_nlJ
: D .h" 00_ I 0
Ln Q, -.r-n_[jJJ
I D dJ! I
= = In_n ~l~D~
.
i<>
Ii
il
i!1
I~
!
II
"
ji
i!1
I~
c
~fl) ~
.'
~
I ,
~
i
~
1)ffi.,m;IItO~
~
-
,OI1li-OS
"" ............._to/OGI...~N !
"" .....- ....,rtJO I I
IIMOI""OI" O~~.
"" _....~-........,..,~ g.
""~"""'-~IN i
'_ ""n" .,...IS,. 11110 , I
8iiuva ~(l1I1I1
'~""'"."J""'."l.'"
"-. '",'''HI;:,,;,,";'':,':',i~~~::;:~
""..II.I''''.,:,"''''''"'"/J''''
.1>71m.?O.'..q?
OlnllO(f ,1(/
NYld 3JJS
~
3i:i'in6up
o,ell~"J$L<.V'JIII:I
'WdOlTlIHOtL
H:)!I(lH::>
lSIldV8 dOllllH
h
B
~fIJ
o
,
g
.'
3^I~a dOllllH
~
---
_'~'~' JH(I_~
'.
.
I
~
~
o 0
o [Q]
......,.
~: 1
;!~1
'iol
, >
,
Oft" 9'~:jlj':,~-'
~ ~~~~'
Ii . j
~
.0-." ........
~..
\
c__ -! 1...__'( ---:J
L [.
'^
,
,
I ~
: I
\ ~
,il
!~~
,il
m
II
,~
;i
\
I
I
,
[IJ~
.
I
I
I
I
I
,
..~
I
,
I
~
;
I
.~ L
I \'
,d
t t ~
I b ~
..: Ii
<1 ~
,
<\ I
'.-\ '
"\.i
-----~
.
!
I
,I
, , ~!
11 t g ,J"'I.\'t
~ ' }~jb-l
, i! I! 1 7 I
'Lv._J.IIU_v._~~~v. I
"
- ,
\
_L____ ------'
.Ot'~JMn~d
I I: ,~ I; I~
I~ U il
! I~ ~! !
! I~ yi I' 'i i! !
, '1 "\
I Ii h II I~ ill! I ~
8
~
1H\I11nSN<X,I!\WNIOt/J
~-
~
~O-tie-gs
OIl .........""_tul."I>.Z,.".,., !
OIl ......._tulWIOI ""-"" I
8NOI8IA~W 0 ~ ~
OIl .....__...IOIZOIO<Z a.
""......---fIO/WMIN i
-." 0:1.,.,.,. .......... 11"'1 , I
lIiUWa iilnlllll
.\';I/17.1.-:>0!i'."V
OJ17110(/ .1(/
N'<>'1d3JJS
LQI
.j'ern6u!=>
OISlfY.l...iSIII....-o<J
.~O dOiT1ft (!tol
H:J!II1H:J
lSU.d\f8 dOllllH
'fl)
o
,
~
;:;
~
II
'J'. "1 II,
\.~ 'r..
'-
,
:.
/~
)
,j
~\--'
~
"
, ,
.. '7 ,I \
l tv ~ \ ,\~ t\,
1 .
~C
IU I
illl!! I!
'.
(
,.. ~I r.\
11 \"\
; 'C-il'!
II t!~, J!
d Ii h ii
,
,I
il
Ii
IJ
II
I ~I
1:1 ;1
~! I! I,
21 I~,
\~\ .~
!
,
~
;-+~
rC^:""'.' ~
(,Ce, '{.
"" r ~I
. '.p -
! t
',,-V1...._,>.><..)
\1
..\
\
\
~
- -
- -
\\
~
- -
~
i
""'~'<<I
\',)11l1-'o.n"V
n,nunG.IG
_j'ej'n6u!:>
"" IOI.....'"'_<O/OO/..Z~!
"" ___w."'" , ""'I 1
8NOI8IA~W O~7
"" _......._ w./Q. z a ~
"".............._DI/tZI..'N i
.... ~ ..............., ~
SOIL'tC >ln881
SNOllV03"B i::IOII::I3J.X3
O....Y.>...iSIIIVlnH:)
"~O dQlT1l~ OtJ.
lX!II
H:)!InH::>
.I.SI.I.d't8 dOllllH
J.//'f"J.lnsHO:l/ll33Nf!JN3
'Olfi--OS
.03l1li:)111'
--
o
.'
~
~
""'dONCOO Ja dO.!. .11 .,~
!M<I'QI/ff'lIJdOJ..o-.oo
""IaIIft' '0 ~1UQO .0-,11<
! !
! ,
! i
I
,
.
i
I II 2 ,
,
, III g ,
'II I. r ,
! il~ I i~
Ii! "go _ I; ,
U!m~n .
..... ...... ~
I
I il2 Ib ,
~III!~ I ,
ill ,
Iii i~; I .
II! In ~ ul
.
!
\
!
I !
,
.
i i
WrillHV JO ~1UQO .0-.11<
""'*'IDft'JO.......o-.Ot
"""IOHOfIJOdOJ..l.Lt
~
~
8
OJ
o
.'
..
~
~
~
~
~
en~'IO
'''''.11'''.
S'dlnDOS'S'V
'JlV1IOU1U
..jSern6u!=>
tU]
IIfIILlns~/!WNI:IN]
~
~
I
II
! !
H
,
I III
(illi~ I
!i II. ~
Ii! III !
~..\
"-,,,<> ~
<~?
,
,
.
"*OI.N" 40 ~3J.H3:I .0 .W
SVNNJIIfII-!& .0-';01',
,",,~_4O .0-.
:;'"~.
~/,;-;:f
,
'" .............-......,,..ZlC") !
<It '--_ml'<!W1 sl
8NOt81Aill O't!~
"'.........___'z a-I
"'..................."..".IN
........ ............., f ~
8i.l'tO in88.
SNOU.\f0313 1:IOII::I31X3
OLS,S w:! ....ISIA ......,H~
lICIo4OJ.l1J<OI'l
H::>I:jnH:J
lSU.dV8 dOl'TllH
'0-.........
o
~
~
~
~4Od01.0-.""
j
! III
~II mil !
i 'I( I
Iii iil !
I
j i
I!
Ii
H
!
II
Ii
H
,
<~
p p ~
<> ~ ~I
OJ
b
.'
,
~
~
,
.
~
~
i
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:3
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-02-04; Consideration of the Auto Park North
Specific Plan. The Auto Park North Specific Plan encompasses
approximately 39 acre and would allow the future development and northerly
expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park including three dealerships along the
north side of Main Street with supporting uses to the rear of the site.
Applicant: Knowlton Realty Advisors, LLC and Otay Mesa Ventures II, LLC
On January 1,2003 Knowlton Realty Advisors, LLC and Otay Mesa Ventures II, LLC ("Developer")
filed an application requesting a Specific Plan (PCM-02-04) for the development ofauto dealership
and supporting uses on an approximately 39-acre site located on the north side of Main Street,
between Brandywine A venue and Maxwell Road. The project would provide an orderly expansion
of the existing Chula Vista Auto Park located immediately to the southwest of the project site. The
project site is located within the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area and would be developed
pursuant to the Auto Park North Specific Plan described further below.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-02-006 in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial
Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project could result in
significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the
applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-02-006.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution PCM-02-04 recommending that the City Council I) Adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Resolution, based on the findings and conditions contained therein
for the Auto Park North Specific Plan, and 2) Introduce an Ordinance to Approve the Auto
Park North Specific Plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 21, 2003, the Resource
Conservation Commission (RCC) considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and
recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council and Redevelopment Agency find the
document adequate per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-006.
\
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
The RCC further recommended that the landscaping for the site confonTI with sustainable
environmental principals and they include the type of pi ants that will contribute to aesthetics, water
availability and also contribute to enhanced air quality and water quality on the project site and
adjacent roadways; and that canopy trees should be placed on the slope, the area adjacent to Main
Street and large parking areas.
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
The following provides a brief summary of the land use history of the site. For a full discussion
please refer to the environmental document prepared for the Auto Park North Specific Plan
(Attachment 5). Land use history at the site dates to 1947 when an animal by-products processing
plant was constructed on-site, operated by the Omar Rendering Company (referred to as Omar). The
Omar plant produced meat and tallow by-products until 1962, when it was sold to the Royal Tallow
and Soap Company (referred to as Royal). Royal held the operation for only 3 years, when it was
sold in 1965 to the Darling-Delaware Company (referred to as Darling). Darling operated the plant
until it was closed in 1981. Royal and Darling also used the site as a processing plant for the
production of animal by-products.
Since 1983, the fOnTIer Omar Rendering Plant site has lain vacant, undevelopable due to
environmental contamination. Despite the clean up of 580,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil in
1981-82 and a satisfactory health risk assessment from the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
groundwater contamination remained on the site. Although two development projects were
considered for the site between 1986 - 2000, both proved infeasible due to the inability to reach
regulatory agency closure for the groundwater conditions.
In 1999 LandBank Inc. (LandBank) acquired the site. Subsequently the finTI contracted Hooper
Knowlton lIVKnowlton Realty Advisers, L.L.c. (Knowlton) to create a development proposal. After
studying the feasibility of a warehouse/distributing project for the site, it was detenTIined that the
highest and best use for the property was auto dealer development linked to the expansion of the
Chula Vista Auto Park. Knowlton proposed a Specific Plan to allow the "North" Auto Park
expansion and City staff determined the project was consistent with the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan and Five Year Implementation Plan for 2000 - 2004.
Concurrent with the entitlements, regulatory closure for the groundwater conditions was required. In
May 2003, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) agreed to a Polanco Act
Agreement with the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. The Polanco Act Agreement allows
the Agency to pass its immunity from regulatory action to Knowlton so that development can
proceed while the R WQCB Clean Up and Abatement Order for the groundwater can be completed.
The Polanco Act Agreement was an enabling action to allow the entitlements, and subsequently site
improvements, sales to auto dealers and the issuance of building penTIits to dealers.
2-
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
B. Project Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
The project site is located along Main Street, approximately one half mile east of Interstate 805,
between Brandywine A venue and Maxwell Road (Attachment I). The site includes approximately
38.81 acres on the north side of Main Street and is approximately 1,284 feet deep with 1,323 feet of
frontage along Main Street. The site was previously subdivided into 18 lots and is primarily
undeveloped with the exception of partial street improvements (Delniso Court and Roma Court) and
other infrastructure. The site has been previously rough graded and terraced by a previous property
owner. There is an elevation difference of over 1 OO-feet between the frontage along Main Street and
the northern boundary line.
Immediately adjacent land uses include single-family residences to the north (situated at elevations
greater than 70 feet above the site building pads and more than 200 feet away), light industrial uses
to the east and west (including the City's Public Works Center to the east), and the site for the
proposed easterly expansion of the Auto Park on the south side of Main Street (proposed Auto Park
East Spe~ific Plan). The existing Chula Vista Auto Park is located to the southwest of the project
site along the south side of Main Street. The Otay Valley Regional Park is located to the south ofthe
existing Auto Park and the proposed easterly expansion of the Auto Park. The Otay Landfill is
located to the northeast of the project site.
C. Specific Plan - Purpose and Objectives
The Auto Park North Specific Plan has been prepared to plan and implement the northerly expansion
of the Chula Vista Auto Park. The guiding rationale behind the Specific Plan is to ensure the orderly
and viable development of the site and the implementation of the policies ofthe General Plan and the
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area by establishing pennitted land uses, development
standards, design guidelines, and entitlement processes. The comprehensive and coordinated
development of the site will benefit the City and the Redevelopment Project Area by removing blight
and facilitating new development that will expand commercial opportunities and the employment
base.
The Auto Park North Specific Plan is a policy and regulatory tool that will guide the development of
the site using a focused development scheme. It provides a bridge between the broad policies of the
General Plan and the detailed development objectives for the site. The Specific Plan establishes land
use and development regulations that are specifically adapted to the proposed development of the
site. The provisions of the Specific Plan are intended to be responsive to constraints and
opportunities on the site and the objectives of the project while implementing adopted policy.
The primary objectives of the Auto Park North Specific Plan are to:
. Expand the existing Auto Park to create a regional destination automobile sales and service
park with supporting uses;
. Create a distinct identity for the Auto Park and a thematic link to other attractions in the
Otay Valley through the Main Street Streetscape Master Plan;
. Coordinate the development, operation, and maintenance of the site;
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
. {mprove the image of the Main Street corridor and adjacent land uses; and
. Ensure the provision of all necessary infrastructure, services, and facilities.
D. Development Concept
The Chula Vista Auto Park is intended to be a regional automobile sales and service destination.
The existing 24-acre Auto Park was constructed in 1991-1995. The Auto Park North expansion will
add approximately 39 acres, and the proposed Auto Park East expansion will add approximately 29
acres to the Auto Park for a total of approximately 92 acres.
There are two development concepts for the Auto Park North Specific Plan: Option I consists of
eleven parcels (Attachment 2); Option 2 consists of seven parcels (Attachment 3). Both options
propose three lots with fTontage on Main Street that would be developed with new car dealerships.
Lots to the interior of the site would be developed with supporting uses such as automotive services
and inventory parking lots.
In both options, vehicle access to lots would only be acceptable from two proposed streets (Delniso
Court and Roma Court); no access would be provided directly fTom Main Street. Roma Court would
only serve two of the dealerships fronting on Main Street. Delniso Court would serve two
dealerships and the supporting uses to the rear of the site. Both intersections would be fully
signalized.
The Specific Plan would allow the construction of up to 130,000 square feet of dealership buildings.
The floor area for these buildings would vary depending on the development proposals submitted for
individual dealerships. These buildings would typically include showrooms, offices, service stations,
and parts departments. The Specific Plan would also allow up to 93,450 square feet of floor area for
supporting automotive uses.
Each of the lots may be developed independently, in accordance with the Specific Plan, including the
development standards, design guidelines, and perfonnance standards and conditions. These
provisions establish lot configurations, maximum lot coverage and floor area, maximum height,
minimum setbacks, parking requirements, landscape requirements, and sign requirements.
Most of the Specific Plan's standards are consistent with the underlying zone or appropriate
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specific requirements that are unique to the Specific Plan take
into consideration the project site and the objectives for the Auto Park; for example, only new auto
dealerships are pennitted on the lots with fTontage on Main Street, while supporting uses are only
allowed on interior lots.
The Specific Plan's design guidelines require landscape consistency within the Auto Park and street,
signage, and landscape improvements that are consistent with the Main Street Streetscape Master
Plan. These design controls are intended to create a coordinated theme and image for the Auto Park
and the Main Street corridor.
3
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
Perfonnance standards and conditions would insure that the operations and maintenance of the land
uses in the Auto Park do not become detrimental to other uses or surrounding areas. These standards
and conditions address hours of operation, promotional displays and events, deliveries and loading,
outdoor speakers and pagers, test driving, car washing, facilities maintenance, and lighting.
E. Development Entitlements
In addition to the Specific Plan (PCM-02-04) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-02-006), the
project applicant is requesting a Tentative and a Final Parcel Map to re-subdivide the existing 18-lot
subdivision into II lots and an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with the Redevelopment
Agency to address the negotiable development considerations for the project and perfonnance
requirements for the developer. After these development entitlements have been obtained,
development proposals for individual lots would be subject to the design review process.
ANALYSIS:
A. General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The Auto Park North Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan's Research and Limited
Industrial land use designation for the site. Automobile sales are conditionally pennitted uses under
the 1- General Industrial zone classification that implements the land use designation. The Specific
Plan would limit the range of uses otherwise pennitted by the I - General Industrial zone in order to
achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
Area, specifically the expansion of the Auto Park and creation of a regional-serving auto center.
The I - General Industrial zone pennits a wide range of uses such as manufacturing, processing,
assembling, research, wholesale, and storage uses; stone and monument works; trucking yards and
tenninals; electrical generating plants and liquefied natural gas plants. Conditionally pennitted uses
include motels, restaurants, service stations, retail distribution centers and outlets, brewing or
distilling ofliquor, meat packing, foundries, automobile salvage and wrecking operations, metal and
waste rag, glass and paper salvage, recycling collection centers, vehicle and equipment auctions, and
hazardous waste facilities.
The Specific Plan considerably reduces the potential range of land uses on the project site by
specifying four categories ofpennitted uses, all of which are consistent with the underlying zone
classification. These are automobile sales (new car dealerships), inventory parking, supporting
services, and accessory uses. Supporting services include a range ofland uses that would support the
auto dealership uses in the Auto Park. These include automobile parts and accessories sales;
automobile repair and service; collision repair; detailing and car washes; restaurants; other vehicle
sales and service; car rentals; and automobile finance and leasing offices.
4
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
B. Specific Plan Statutory Requirements
Specific Plans maybe adopted by ordinance in accordance with Chapter 19.07, Specific Plans of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code and Sections 65450-65457 of the California Government Code.
Chapter 19.07 adopts and incorporates Government Code Sections 65450-65457 by reference as
though set forth in full. The Specific Plan supersedes the zone regulations for the project site.
Where in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, the Specific Plan applies; and where it is silent, the
Zoning Ordinance and other applicable policies and regulations apply.
The proposed Auto Park North Specific Plan meets the statutory requirements of Government Code
Section 65450-65457. Specifically, the following required sections are provided, as noted:
I) The distribution ofland uses in the area covered by the plan (Section II);
2) The provision of essential facilities to support the land uses (Section VI);
3) Standards for development (Section III, IV, and V);
4) Implementation measures (Section VII); and
5) The relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (Section I).
CONCLUSION:
The Auto Park North Specific Plan proposes land uses that would implement the General Plan land
use designation for the site and the Redevelopment Plan's goals and objectives for a regional Auto
Park within the Otay Valley Road Project Area. The provisions ofthe Auto Park North Specific Plan
would implement existing guidelines relative to design, on-site landscaping, and the Main Street
streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Auto Park North Specific Plan and related
documents.
A TT ACHMENTS:
.
I. Locator Map
2. Option I
3. Option 2
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-02-04
5. Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-02-006)
6. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement
7. Draft City Council Ordinance
8. Draft Specific Plan
5
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCATOR MAP
~
lID
IJ
I
I
w
:::J
Z
w
~
w
z
--.J ~
I~
J'
;::]
OTAY LANDFILL
VACANT
'/
/' ,>' /"
t:
INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS
SIGN CT
o
<(
o
0:
-'
-'
UJ
:;
;;;
::;
MAIN STREET
Y/1ltv s
rRf:f:r
AUTO
PARK
VACANT
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ APPLICANT: and OTAY MESA VENTURES II, LLC
PROJECT NORTH OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN Request: Proposed Specific Plan for future development
ADDRESS: BRANDYWINE AV. AND MAXWELL RD of the northerly expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park.
The project site consists of approximately 39 acres.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: Related Case: IS-02-006
NORTH No Scale PCM-02-04
C\DAIFILE\locators\pcm0204 cdr 4/29/03
1
ATTACHMENT 2
OPTION 1
~
.
c
~ ~ U1
,e:. 0... ~
2. (1) .~
0-2..........(1)
o .......l.- (f)
I- o-(f) C 0
~o 0"'5
:7'" ~.- '"
4.=~..... .. .,""
t;; ~ ~ Oo...:t ~ U i~ H "
?~9;; .E:- ~o.. Ott! ~;: ~? ~~ '"
V~ ~~.,' "",
o _.:.~~ ~o~ ;.::,,~"9>
::> .::;:.. ],"'6 ~:; ~?- .~ .
'6 ~ .'1}" I' ,1 "1,\" \I h 1
'5'. 0. 0:. ~ 1\ II;! '\ 1\111\11;\
.... I
,- , ' /, / :~:-: (: :::::,.c'j'll" -:' ~~..:'=?";~.~
, \ ~ ' . \ ' 1\:
\ ~ ~" .'~:"f(\ \ '\; \;" ""," \1 = =y
~_ ".w~, ',~V' " II. i h ".
~ ~_ ~ill-l~:--\ \) \ !;' I I : ~1 = '\ i
" ...J'?I;=-;::-~~J', I \"\' ,_' .. -". c ).
\7:~~= "'.-',, 'L,~ .. - i i .<J. ...! >' ,
rj' ,._ c~ ~o \ .-0 \. . ..~~i:-'~ \
~,.. '.' ,._J ' J J' 'c-., '- L \
......_ rITJ. , .. -" ," ,.;, ~ ..0 .~..' ....
.: 3, ,\\;, \Ir:=r=---I\ ,:cy~/~-+~:'
\___ ~ ',r;;. .1' -' 'W. ~. '-- " \
~"tf-l 'J;, \i\ \ \\" L-=~\ ~;'~ ;;\
\,,~~.~,ill t m Hr' /" \ II 1 \ \ .> t I.~\
" ~ G ,,'j \ 1:;' :,' ,= .., . , "..
I \ ;'" -II i ( \\~ j;: I ' .. ~.. \ -'I
, II" ". \e. \\ ,'o ;11 ;, = .. I . 1, \. .11 : \ .\'
\ . .'Z " " I, . -.,' ~ \
I t") I :_! ~. ' . -,,, :; 0' I .' / .
, _ ',., ".' . ',_. 0 = ...' . I \, V
o C5/'''c...--''' \ .. ,I. JI. _ . "I i
, J ,.~'c ' . ..'~~='l..',~~:"~"~~
c'" .?"..::c-~. , " ".- "".". ....,..-<... . ....jl
/ ___ ~~__~~\'::5--'0"
1 \ \ {..o'::" C"~-- . / .
\\ .' \~. ,,';;.., .:" -..,01' ~ l>i
, . .,'j ,\0>' .. W
. ~ I... ..~~. 11'\ -== 'c,
,y..... . ,.~-<f r _ \ ,~ 'il' . 1\ t
. _, ---=-V'" · -= ,- ,..~? . = =. ~
'. 3>" \ 5 .', .,.. .; · L---i"\
\ ._"---' ' ~~__c..-----
.." c-" -" -" - ,.-" - -.
- .
i'"
~\I .
- '$ -
.. %~.
~?c ~~~ $
~~
~~
~ ~ .\
~~ ~
H
~..
~. .
~~ ~
. .
U
.;i.... ..
~'&i. ..;.
~~ ~!-~
:':. ~~<;!..
~~
~~ :
<i ~ ~ #. ..
'Q~ '/'J';:.%'$
10 '" ;:i,..- ..
-" ..-'
~.-;'~
~;h,
...;:-~-
tn ii~~~
-ro "'$$<='
_ ~"'o~
o
I-
~ ~d~~
'[\\1i
,\ ~~\
SJ \
~ .. ~
~ .' ~ _ ~ . \ 0 ~ . ~
.... ~t .. 1 <D ~~ 1 '" ~\ ~ :, ~\ h z
~ ~ . ~ _ .~ ~ _ .~ ~ "0 8~ ~t"~
::. h ~~~l ::. hI::' hI -' ~! .u:o.
..- h.. ~
or' ~ 1 ~~..'r;:-
5 h ~~! i
( "
C\
(j
~
s;.
<) .
:a.
'" ~
c: ,
.~ ,
~
c: ,
0
u .
~ l
€ ~
tJI
-
, ,.
0
> 0
- .
. -
0 , ,
< .
~ " "
. .
."
.'
".
\< ~
, '
, t'
1 ,1
~~ s!
f 1\
\i 'v
1 'i::
.' .. "i
t, . ~ ~ ,'1,-.,
to ~~ ~ '" 'i~~~,<
~ ",!l ~ ot".
5 ~~ inly,t~:
~~- ..
. ~ -
'i: --J..
....:i q,,,,,,,
"," N.>I>~~
_ ~ "'.- t'\
.
.-
~.~ ..
:1,: -
't't %"
,,~ ~&!\~
il ~
1,'!J ~
~ ~ ~,
~~ ~~~ ~
" .
~ ~ !l ~
...~~%!l",,,,~~~!l'"
5 ~1 ~1~i 5 l~ i~~i
1
'II
~.
\
I
I..
ATTACHMENT 3
OPTION 2
10
:c
b:: c:
o co
Z en
:::.::: Il.. Q)
c:x: ()
<t: Z Q) '2:
~::5-C\l~
I-- a.. (/) c: 0
=><..) -
<t: - >-.~ ~
.-4'" LL ~ tit! .,t! 1< !
~ <..) co -;;. -::- . . HI
en w c: ~ ct:I ~.~ ~~ ~~ n ,
:> a... 0 Co ~ ~ ~ ~ _ r> ~ ~ ~ i* S!~
en c. '" N_"., . ia !j
::5 E .8 0 ~~ ~;,,~ g ~ :~ g"~~ r 5_
=> :::J ..... .! ,j
:c Q) <( U &:i & .. ~ i!'ii!~
<..) ~& ~ ~& ~ ~& 15 1__ 8
W ..... .6- :; $ ~ ~ ~ C\J $ ~ < '" $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ih j
~..., , ~, ~, ~:'J:'~i:..~ S :r: ,);! . n, ,~~,C"~' =~1'
I -c>- " 1.1 Il" ~ j If.~
~---- -. I ~ _, I
I:....=- -- - - -
i! U = =
'-j , i ,~ v i i,ir'. ~, ~ t' .~ n, ),
- =' ,IF:3 ~1,:3, i ' "~ \L:~~ )~ )i
I ~ I 1" L " _ - .f_.._____i, . I::> B W 0 1:1 -..::..:. k I
~. L /'" :} ,+ ~ V !
~ 1,1' J -~----"--;,I-';r-~'
! ~ (" "'-- r L- - " 1
I:: ! I"" I < C ~ '''-'I':
1[1 [I i - i~ i ~ !
! : ~ ~l /- - Hi ~ H = r" '_I
I,,\~ ~ ~ ~ If /J' = - i j~ ii,
\\~, h 'J = = II 0 0 0 = i I -; i
\,...." 1;t,'<D If ~ ~ U J 0 r.':E '
.c ----.;~i "_ Q 0 D 0 D i J, i ,
'~.._.....'..3 = =, u " U / I '
',.....;, -, '-.:1. . (1 ",~ -" / )> v
" '~.'.' , =~ 'I
.: '~ '~, =--.IJno::> OSIUlaa _"' i~----"--.~:,.-'''::'':'l
~ II-J/ \ I ~
o ~! I =,'~ ~ =, "i'l I '
pi !J ~ = ~ f}", 'I
~~k = = ~f, , in I 'I
- -=______--' ::f~~ ~ fL2~~_"..2=:: ~ =c:j
~IA
:. L i0'11\
,
S I. ,', \
C') i ~ '.
:3' ~~
r---r= - - _..c--- -
I !
: \ 0
I 11
, C\I~. \
I _ '
i ..3'
L__-_
E
I
E
I
II~;
I .:.
I
E
E
~ .
II"
.... ";;;
~;;~
:~~i!
='i. ~ a>-
en ~; ~~
ca ~:B:B1!;J
~ ~C.
1:5 f .
Q) IJ.O>
'- :!oj
~ ~8h
( ~
Ci
'1 ~i
'\ j!
:.J I
. ~~ ~~
~ ~ fi~ ~!G .:
" :II a!.. :B:;j ~ 'I! II
'II ~ ::r; .... ....
~~~ ~~~ ~~~::!~~
); .); &
~f; ~d co .iH ~
"'!i ~1l}$"CldjH~
- i f 0 i$ i o! R!"~
.3~! ~ ....J ~~ <l. ....J ~~ ~8~a..
u
~s; II
NN .
:11:11 ~" II
~ ~ <<<:~ g: <;!
'" '" <1i _ ~ ';J
~
..... !i
- .
o ,
..J 0
< ,
'6 ~ ~
i!~ f
~
~
- -
i1 ; H ,
. . ,
=='= ,
'-
I
=:
r
I
I,
I
II
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. PCM-02-04
12-
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-02-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM1\nSSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(1S-02-006) AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
SPECIFIC PLAN (pCM-02-04) FOR THE AUTO PARK NORTH
EXPANSION (KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, LLC & OTAY
MESA VENTURES II, LLC).
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Specific Plan was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the application requests the adoption of a Specific Plan for the development of the Auto
Park North Expansion on 38.8] acres ofland on the north side of Main Street between Brandywine Avenue
and Maxwell Road and represented on Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS. the Specific Plan would implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS. the Specific Plan would be consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a MItigated Negative DeclaratIOn and MitIgatIOn Momtoring and Reporting Program (IS-
02-006) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least
ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS. the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on May ]4,2003 at 6:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports. evidence, and testimony presented at the
public hearing with respect to the application.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (lS-02-006), based on the findmgs and conditIOns contained therein for the Auto Park
North Specific Plan.
BE ]T FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby find that the
proposed Auto Park North Specific Plan is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and is
supported by public necessity, convenienee. general welfare. and good zoning practice.
J3
Resolution No. PCM-02-04
Page No.2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend
that the City Council introduce an ordinance approving Specific Plan (PCM-02-04) for the Auto Park North
Expansion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May, 2003, by the following vote. to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATIEST:
Diana Vargas. Secretary
14
ATTACHMENT 6
APPLICATION DOCUMENTS WITH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
1'5'
~VC-
-.-
"-- ----
- ----~~
- - - -
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(6 I 9)69 I -5 I 0 I
Development Processing
Application Form - Type B
Page One
01Y Of
:::HULA VISfA
hYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED
(slaff use only) Case No.: PCA;( -1J;2 -eJl/
o General Plan Amendment
o Zone Change
Filing Date: I / /l.! /03
Assigned Planner' Pc:
Receipt No.:
Project Accl: A c '.2 1>-
Depos~ Acct: DO'- rK'I
Related Cases: IS --C;;z. - dO"
o ZA C8(Public Hearing
Be
By:
If applicant Is not owner. owners authorization
is required to process request. See signature
on Page Two.
Engineer/Agent HOOPER KNOWLTON III 801-582-5347/801-541-0953
ERIC SWANSON 303-763-8500 ext. 11 /303-807-3969_
.ogineer/Agent Address 1445 CANTERBURY DR., SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84108
I 141 UNION BLVE.. SUTIE 330. LAKEWOOD. CO 80228
IGENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types)
Project Name I Proposed Land Use(s): AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN BUS TRANSIT PARKING
Generai Description of Proposed Project
(Please use App€ndix A to provide 0 full description and Justification for the project)
o General Development Plan
o Amendment
~ SPNSpecific Plan
o Amendment
o Redevelopment
o Amendment SPECIFIC PLAN
IAPPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant Name KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, LLC
OT A Y MESA VENTURES I, LLC
. 303-763-8500 Ext. I [ / 303-807-3969-
Applicant Address 1445 CANTERBURY DR., SALT LAKE CITY.IJT 84108
141 UNION BLVD., LAKEWOOD. CO 80228
Applicant's Interest in Property
rX! 0Nn 0 Lease ~ In Escrow 0 Oplion to purchase
o Tentative Subdivision
Mop
o Annexation
o Other:
I
Phone No.
801-582-5347/801-541-0953
I
SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATEMENT
SEE PROJECT JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
-
ISUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types) Ii.
ILocation/Street Address I
l MAIN STREET BETWEEN BRANDYWINE AND MAXELL RD. --.-l
IAssessor Parcei No. IAII=h 10111 nece5S0rYJ[1OtOT Acreage Redevelopment Area (if applicable) I
1644-041-01 thru 14; & 17 thru 19 38.81 au YES 90 - 02 !
Current General Plan Designation I urren one Planned Community (If oppllcable) II
INDUSTRIAL! COMMERCIAL
s t is In ontgomery ."
I~urrent Land Use
rOOM B. (pAGE 1 or 2)
VACANT LAND
J
IfD"/99
~{f?
-.-
'--, ----
- --
- -
- -
CITY or CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
Development Processing
Application Form - Type B
Page Two
J1Y Of
'--. .LlLA VISTA
(staffuseontv)
Case No.:
IGENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
General Development Plan Name
I
Total Acres
Proposed Land Uses
Commercial:
Parks:
Community Purpose:
Public/Quasi:
Residential
Single Family Detached:
Single Family Attached:
Duplexes:
Apartments:
Condominiums:
Totals:
38.81 Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Industrial:
Schools:
Circulation:
Open Spoce:
38.81 Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Range
to
to
to
to
to
to
Units
Units
Units
Units
Units
Units
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
I~ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
rr )sed Land Use DeSignation
I
I Please state why the General Plan should be changed
I
I
NOT APPLICABLE
IANNEXATION
Prezoning I lAFCO Ref. No.
NOT APPLICABLE
I!TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
t
Subdivision Name CV Tract No. I
i
[ Minimum Lot Size , No. ot Units I Average Lot ~Ize
I
IZONE CHANGE NOT APPLICABLE Ii
o Rezoning 0 Prezoning o Setback I Proposed Zoning
f
HnOPERKNOWLTONIP '. ....-/~~
P ,:Jplicant or Agent Name App A.. ture ~
OTA Y MESA VENTURES I, LLC
Print Owner Name Owner Signature
{ReQuired if Applicant is not Owner]
~.k:.-./:>7"' 7~ Zeo;?,
te ...
Date
/77/00
Appendix A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME. CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, LLC
APPLICANT NAME: OTAY MESA VENTURES II, LLC
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be
accomplished as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself.
the property. the neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project.
You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the
reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary .
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as
listed in listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
Description & Justification.
SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATEMENT
SEE PROJECT JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
/6
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests. payments.
- campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Juncil, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract. e.g.. owner applicant. contractor. subcontractor, material supplier.
OT A Y MESA VENTURESn, LLC
KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, LLC
2. if any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
NOT APPLICABLE
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
NOT APPLICABLE
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees. and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents. employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
6 Have you andlor your officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -X- If yes. state which
Councilmember(s):
Date'
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECES
AUGUST 9Tl1, 2002
e of pplicant .IJ~
, /
~ HOOPER KNOWLTON III
Pnnt or type name of contractor/appllcant
. I'ersoll IS dejincd as' "'Am' IfIdh'ldual. firm, co partllershlp, jOlflf venlure, assocJQflOlI. socwl ciub. jrealernaJ orRGnt::allon, corporatIOn.
t'slc.lll'. IrUS!, n"ct'n';:r, svndlcah" Ihis and vny Olln'T COUI/ty, elf V Gnd CGumr.... clf\' fTwnlclpalav distrIct. nr other I'olltlcal subd,VISUJrI or Of/V
<I[/;,>r gnJu/) or cnmhll1i1f10n dC[lf/g as () lalll ..
''I
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK NORTH
SPECIFIC PLAN
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
The justifications for the Chula Vista Auto Park North Specific Plan in Chula Vista, California,
are as follows:
DEMAND FOR AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP PROPERTY
Presently there is a demand for automobile dealerships property in Chula Vista. This is
underscored by the fact that both Daimler Chrysler and Toyota have determined that the
Chula Vista area and popul,ation basis will support new dealerships. Toyota spend nearly
18 months analyzing the market area and dynamics as they "cleared" the area for a potential
dealership. Their announcement on May 16th, 2002, that a new Toyota dealership "point"
would be awarded to Chula Vista underscores the present demand for automobile dealership
development and expansion of the present Chula Vista Auto Mall. Additionally, this is
supported by Chryslers desire to have a new dealership which is south of their present Dodge
/ Chrysler dealerships in National City.
ECONOMIC
Since the closure of the Darling Delaware rendering facility in 1982, the Darling property
has provided the City of Chula Vista with virtually no economic tax base beyond a raw
ground value. As a result the City has had minimal property tax from this 38.81 acre
property. The current property tax roll for the 18 lots contained in the 38.81 acre site owned
by Otay Mesa Ventures II, LLC, is $26,266.92. The proposed Chula Vista Auto Park North
property will have an economic valuation in excess $30,000,000 upon completion of all
dealership construction and economic stabilization. If the property tax mill levy is .085%,
the base property tax yield for the property will provide the City of Chula Vista with and
annual revenue of $267, 750, or a ten-fold increase in property taxes. Considering
only the economic basis of the proposed development should provide the City with
justification to approve the Chula Vista Auto Park North Expansion. The greater economic
benefit to the City of Chula Vista is the City's participation in the sales tax revenue. It is
anticipated that the proposed dealerships in the Chula Vista Auto Mall expansion will have
a combined annual sales revenue in excess of$100,000,000. It is anticipated that the taxable
revenue will exceed $75,000.000. With the City's 1% sales tax participation, the City
should anticipate sales tax revenue of approximately $750,000. Therefore, the
combined property tax and sales tax revenue should exceed $1,000,000 to the City
ofChula Vista.
20
Project Justification
Chula Vista Auto Park North Expansion
August 8., 2002
Page 2
TAX INCREMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Further economic incentive for the projects justification is that the property lies within the
City of Chula Vista's Redevelopment District 90-02, created in April of 1993. Because the
property is within an RDA district, the increase in property tax valuation will significantly
add to the RDA's tax increment and thereby further support the RDA's ability to sponsor
redevelopment of areas within the RDA's boundaries. This continued effort on the part of
the RDA to upgrade the economic basis of the RDA district supports the purpose for the
RDA in assisting the economic development of the City of Chula Vista.
INCREASED EMPLOYMENT BASE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Given the approximate 158,400 to 200,000 square feet of anticipated dealership and
dealership support services, that is contemplated in the proposed development, the range of
employment will be between 150 to 300 employees. This increased employment basis
provides additional justification for the approval of the proposed project.
IMPROVEMENT OF BLIGHTED AREA and RAW GROUND UTILIZATION
Since the formation of the Redevelopment District 90-02 in April of 1993, there have been
a number of economic improvements to the RDA district. The construction of the Fuller
Honda & Ford automobile dealership together with People's Chevrolet have had a
significant economic impact on the RDA. The utilization of raw undeveloped ground has
added to the economic basis of the RDA and provided increased property values.
Additionally. the sales tax revenue generated by the automobile sales has enhanced the City
of Chula Vista's overall general fund. The proposed project will add to the improved real
estate values in the immediate area and will provide greater utilization of the existing
property so as to achieve its highest and best use.
VISUAL ENHANCEMENT TO MAIN STREET
Ai; an in-fill property, the proposed project will add significantly to the streetscape of Main
Street. Upon completion, the projects landscape theme along Main Street and the
architectural detail of the buildings will provide a significant improvement to the overall
visual aesthetics of Main Street. The Chula Vista Auto Mall will add to the Cars & Guitars
theme that is being promoted by the Community Development Department.
21
ATTACHMENT 7
DRAFf CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
22.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-02-04) FOR THE AUTO PARK NORTH
EXPANSION (KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS. LLC & OTAY MESA
VENTURES II, LLC).
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land, which are the subject of this Ordinance, are represented in
Exhibit "A" and for the purpose of general description herein consist of 38.81 acres located on the
north side of Main Street between Brandywine Avenue and Maxwell Road ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2003 Knowlton Realty Advisors, LLC and Otay Mesa Ventures
II, LLC ("Developer") filed an application requesting the adoption of a Specific Plan (PCM-02-04)
for the development of auto dealership lots and supporting use lots on the Project Site ("Project");
and
C. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project
on May 14, 2003, and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan (PCM-
02-04); and
WHEREAS. the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
D. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
May 27, 2003 on the application and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and
E. Owner Participation Agreement
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was introduced for
first reading (May 27,2003), the City Council approved Resolution No. by which it
approved an Owner Participation Agreement with the Project applicant.
II. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds, determines,
and ordains as follows:
A. Cert'ification of Compliance with CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reportin9 Program (IS-02-006) has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines.
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. and hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-02-006).
23
Ordinance
Page 2
B. Independent Judgment of City Council
The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and
judgment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(IS-02-006) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista and hereby adopt same.
C. Adoption of Specific Plan
The City Council does hereby adopt Specific Plan (PCM-02-04), attached hereto, finding
that it is consistent with the General Plan and would implement the Redevelopment Plan for the
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area, and that the public necessity, conveniences,
general welfare, and good zoning practice supports its approval and implementation.
III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that anyone or more terms. provisions. or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, ille9al, or unenforceable, this Ordinance shall be deemed to
be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Laurie Madi9an
Community Development Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
z1
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFf SPECIFIC PLAN
25
AUTO PARK NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
2~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IX. Amendments to the Specific Plan
Page I
Page I
Page I
Page I
Page I
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 10
Page 10
Page 10
Page II
Page II
Page 12
Page 12
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
27
I. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Statutory Authority
C. Relationship to Other Plans and Policies
D. Specific Plan Objectives
E. Site Location
F. Surrounding Uses
G. Site Characteristics
H. Issues and Opportunities
I. Development Concept
II. Land Use Regulations
A. Land Use Distribution
B. Pennitted Uses
C. Prohibited Uses
D. Outdoor Uses Prohibited - Exceptions
III. Development Standards
A. Lot Configuration
B. Lot CoveragelFloor Area
C. Height
D. Building Setbacks
E. Parking
F. Landscaping
G. Signs
IV. Design Guidelines
V. Performance Standards and Conditions
A. Hours of Operation
B. Promotional Displays and Events
C. Deliveries and Loading/Unloading
D. Outdoor Speakers and Pagers
E. Test Driving
F. Carwash Facilities
G. Facility Maintenance
H. Rideshare Incentives
I. Lighting
VI. Infrastructure and Services
A. Water
B. Wastewater
C. Stonn Water and Drainage
D. Solid Waste and Recycling
E. Energy
F. Streets and Circulation
VII. Implementation
VIII. Environmental Review
X. Auto Dealer Association
XI. Enforcement
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The Auto Park North Specific Plan, ("Project"), is a policy and regulatory tool that will guide the
development of the Project site using a focused development scheme. It provides a bridge between
the broad policies of the General Plan and the detailed development objectives for the site. This
Specific Plan supercedes the applicable zoning provisions for the site by establishing land use and
development regulations that are specifically adapted to the proposed development of the Project
site. The provisions of this Specific Plan are intended to be responsive to constraints and
opportunities on the site and the objectives of the Project while implementing adopted policy.
The Auto Park North Specific Plan has been prepared to plan and implement the northerly expansion
of the Chula Vista Auto Park, ("Auto Park"), on Main Street in the City ofChula Vista. The guiding
rationale behind this Specific Plan is to ensure the orderly and viable development of the Project site
and the implementation of the policies of the General Plan and the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area. The comprehensive and coordinated development of the northerly expansion of the
Auto Park will benefit the City and the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area by removing
blight and facilitating new development that will expand commercial opportunities and the
employment base.
B. Statutory Authority
The Auto Park North Specific Plan is adopted by ordinance in accordance with Chapter 19.07,
Specific Plans, ofTitle 19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Sections 65450-65457 of
the California Government Code. Chapter 19.07 adopts and incorporates the Government Code
Sections 65450-65457 by reference as though set forth in full.
C. Relationship to Other Plans and Policies
The Auto Park North Specific Plan implements the broad policies of the General Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area by establishing
permitted land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and entitlement processes for the
expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park. This Specific Plan supersedes the zone regulations for the
Project site. Where in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall apply; and where
this Specific Plan does not address a topic, the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable policies and
regulations shall apply.
D. Specific Plan Objectives
The primary objectives of the Auto Park North Specific Plan are:
I. The expansion of the existing auto park to create a regional destination automobile sales and
service park with supporting uses.
2. A distinct identity for the Auto Park and a thematic link to other attractions in the Otay
Valley through the Main Street Streetscape Master Plan.
3. The comprehensive and coordinated development, operation, and maintenance ofthe Project
site.
2-~
AUlD Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02-04)
4. An improved image of the Main Street corridor and adjacent land uses.
5. The provision of all necessary infTastructure, services, and facilities at the time of need.
E. Site Location
The Auto Park North Specific Plan site is located along Main Street within the City ofChula Vista,
approximately one half mile east of Interstate 805. The Project site consists of approximately 38.81
acres on the north side of Main Street to the east of Brandywine Avenue and to the west of Maxwell
Road.
F. Surrounding Uses
Immediately adjacent land uses include single-family residences to the north, light industrial uses to
the east and west (including the City's Public Works Center to the east), and the site for the proposed
easterly expansion of the Auto Park on the south side of Main Street (Auto Park East Specific Plan).
The existing Auto Park is located to the southeast of the Project site along the south side of Main
Street. The Otay Valley Regional Park is located to the south of the existing Auto Park and the
proposed easterly expansion of the Auto Park. The Otay Landfill is located to the northeast of the
Project site.
G. Site Characteristics
The Project site includes approximately 38.81 acres on the north side of Main Street and is
approximately 1,284 feet deep with 1,323 feet of fTontage along Main Street. The site was
previously subdivided into 18 lots and is primarily undeveloped with the exception of partial street
improvements (Delniso Court and Roma Court) and other infrastructure. The site has been
previously rough graded and terraced by a previous property owner. There is an elevation difference
of over I OO-feet between the fTontage along Main Street and the northern boundary line.
H. Issues and Opportunities
The depth of the site and the elevation differences on the site could contribute to visibility and
accessibility issues for certain types ofland uses on the rear portion of the site. In addition, the prime
arterial designation for Main Street is a consideration for suitable types of land use for the site.
However, these same attributes present opportunities for appropriate types ofland uses such as the
proposed Auto Park North expansion. The Specific Plan addresses these and other issues and
opportunities through land use and development regulations.
1. Issues
a. The depth of the site is a development consideration for land uses that require or desire
visibility and/or frontage along the primary street serving the site.
b. The elevation differences on the site and the terraced building pads could pose an
accessibility and visibility challenge for certain types ofland uses.
c. The adjacent residential uses to the north require consideration and could limit the desirable
Page:': ,,; 13
zq
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02-04)
types of non-residential uses of the site.
d. The previous uses of the site and current environmental conditions could limit the types of
uses and improvements that could be allowed on portions of the site.
e. Main Street is designed as a prime arterial intended to move large volumes of traffic at
relatively high speeds with minimal access. Adequate access to the developed site would
require signalized intersection(s) to allow safe access.
f. Key intersections and the Main Street corridor east of Interstate 805 lack identity and the
existing streetscapes have no unifying theme.
2. Opportunities
a. The planned development of the site will provide for an appropriate use of the under-utilized
property and further the redevelopment objectives of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area.
b. Comprehensive planning and design will result in efficient circulation, safe access, and the
effective use of infrastructure and other improvements.
c. There are adequate public facilities and services that now exist or that can be easily provided
to serve the site.
d. The relative elevation difference between the site and the adjacent residential development to
the north creates a natural and effective aesthetic, light, and noise buffer.
e. Key intersections can be used to create urban focal points, and this segment of Main Street
can be unified under one streetscape and landscape theme.
f. Close proximity to Interstate 80S, the water park, the amphitheater, the river valley, and other
potential land use attractions in the Otay Valleycreate the opportunity to develop a
coordinated theme and image for the Main Street corridor.
I. Development Concept
The Chula Vista Auto Park is intended to be a regional automobile sales and service destination
located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The existing 24-acre Auto Park
was constructed in 1991-1995. The Auto Park North expansion will add approximately 39 acres, and
the proposed Auto Park East expansion will add approximately 29 acres to the Auto Park for a total
of approximately 92 acres.
There are two development concepts for the Auto Park North Specific Plan: Option I consists of
eleven parcels (Appendix A); Option 2 consists of seven parcels (Appendix B). Both options
propose lots with frontage on Main Street that would be developed with new car dealerships. Lots to
the interior of the site would be developed with supporting uses such as automotive services and
inventory parking lots. Each of the lots may be developed independently, in accordance with the
Auto Park North Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan would allow the construction of up to 130,000 square feet of dealership buildings.
The floor area for these buildings would vary depending on the development proposals submitted
for individual dealerships. These buildings would typically include showrooms, offices, service
stations, and parts departments. This Specific Plan would also allow up to 93,450 square feet of
floor area for supporting automotive uses.
Page 3 of \J
30
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02,04)
II. LAND USE REGULATIONS
A. Land Use Distribution
The Auto Park North Specific Plan allows the development of new automobile sales dealerships
and supporting uses. The distribution of pennitted uses shall be consistent with either Option 1
or Option 2 below.
Option 1
I -.""'--.,--,.----~-.'-i
I Parcel i
I
i-
I
2
. ------~-----
3
~---
4
5
6
7
8
-------
9
10
______n
11
~--
.~-
1- -----
I
I
f-----
--
,
- - ........--.---
-------..----
-_.._~
- -.---------- .
Automobile
Sales
P
II Automobile/Inventory 1
Parking I
1--".' --
I
___ u_ ~ ___
Supporting
Services
P
~---_....-
-~---
P
p
--~--_._---~-- ---- - .'----- .'-----
p
p
______________..__n_____"
p
-- -'------'-
------.------_..._-
,
-------
~------'------,_.p_. ---------
P
p
P
I
-----:
.--- - -- -
Option 2
Parcel
Automobile
Sales
P
I Automobile/In~entory i
Parkin!: :
I
-]---- -- P
,
---.J
Supporting
Services
I
2 -1--
-,.--.
3 I
. ---4------.- i ..-
5
6
7
----
p
. ..
I
-"[...-----------------------
! p
p
,
--.------
- ---,.---.--...-,--.,,,..,-------
p
p
__.nmn_____
--------- -------
_ ___._._...__.m_.........
Page 4 of 13
31
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02-04)
B. Permitted Uses
The following are the uses pennitted within the Auto Park North Specific Plan:
1. Automobile Sales. Automobile, as used in this Specific Plan, shall mean passenger cars,
light trucks, and motorcycles.
a. Retail sales, leasing, and display of new automobiles;
b. Fleet sales and wholesaling of new automobiles when incidental to on-site retail sales of
new automobiles;
c. Retail sales, leasing, and display of used automobiles when incidental to on-site retail
sales of new automobiles and not exceeding 50 percent of total inventory;
d. Automobile rentals when incidental to on-site retail sales of new automobiles;
e. Automobile inventory parking when incidental to on-site retail sales of new automobiles;
f. Automobile service, maintenance, and repair when incidental to on-site retail sales of
new automobiles.
2. Automobile inventory Parking
3. Supporting Services
a. After Market Automobile Accessories Sales, Installation, and Service
b. A TV Retail Sales and Service
c. Auto Glass Repair and Auto Glass Tinting
d. Auto Parts Sales
e. Auto Tuning
f. Auto Upholstery
g. Automobile Audio and Video Display Sales, Installation, and Service
h. Automobile Detailing
I. Automobile Finance and Leasing Office
J. Automobile Parts and Inventory Warehousing
k. Car Rental
I. Car Washing
m. Collision Repair
n. Custom Wheels / After Market Specialty Wheels
o. Lube Service
p. Motorcycle Retail Sales and Service
q. Muffler Repair
r. Office
s. Restaurant / Deli
t. RV Sales, Parts, and Service
Page 5 of 13
3~
Auto Pork North Specific Pion (PCM,02,04)
u. Tire Sales, Installation, and Service
v. Transmission Repair
w. Truck Rental and Trailer Rental
x. Used Car Sales / Specialty Used Car Sales
4. Accessory Uses and Structures
Accessory uses and structures that are customarily appurtenant to the above permitted uses,
provided that such uses and structures are screened from public view or incorporated into the
architecture and design of this Specific Plan and subsequent development plans.
C. Prohibited Uses
Any use not expressly permitted by this Specific Plan is prohibited.
D. Outdoor Uses Prohibited - Exceptions
Outdoor uses and storage are prohibited, and all permitted uses shall be conducted within completely
enclosed buildings, except for the following:
I. Automobile display.
2. Automobile inventory parking.
3. Parking and loading facilities.
4. Dining
Poge 6 of 13
:/3
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM-02-04)
III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Lot Configuration
Lot configuration shall substantially conform to either Option I or Option 2.
B. Lot Coverage/Floor Area
The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 50 percent. The total floor area for dealership buildings
shall not exceed 130,000 square feet on the Project site. The total floor area for supporting use
buildings shall not exceed 93,450 square feet on the Project site.
C. Height
The maximum height of buildings and other structures shall not exceed 45 feet, except as provided in
the Zoning Ordinance for architectural features and other exceptions.
D. Building Setbacks
I. Main Street Setback: 40 feet.
2. Internal Street Setback: 25 feet.
3. Side and Rear Setbacks: 20 feet.
E. Parking
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
On-street parking shall be allowed, except along Main Street.
F. Landscaping
A minimum of20 percent of the Project site shall be landscaped. Lots shall be landscaped to a depth
of at least I 0 feet along property lines, except for approved driveways, parking areas, display areas,
loading areas, and other approved facilities. Landscape plans shall be consistent with the Design
Guidelines (Section IV) and shall be submitted with the required development plans to the Design
Review Committee for design review (Section VII).
G. Signs
In addition to the following specific requirements, the Municipal Code provisions regulating signs
shall apply to signs within the Auto Park North Specific Plan.
I. A planned sign program shall be prepared for each parcel and shall be submitted with the
required development plans to the Design Review Committee for design review (Section
VII). Planned sign programs shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines (Section IV).
Page 7 of 13
34
Auto Park North SpCCJfie Plan (PCM,02,04)
2. Off-site signs shall only be pennitted through an off-site sign program that has been
approved by the Design Review Committee through design review (Section VII). Off-site
sign programs shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines (Section IV).
3. The following signs are prohibited, except when approved as part of a promotional display or
event (Section V.B.):
a. Pole signs.
b. Roof signs.
c. Painted signs.
d. Message boards.
e. Marquee signs.
f. Window signs.
g. Portable signs.
h. Flashing, animated, or moving signs or signs that simulate movement.
1. Banners.
J. Pennants.
k. Streamers.
1. Balloons.
m. Inflatables.
IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape Manual and the Main Street Streetscape
Master Plan shall apply to the Auto Park, including individual parcels. The landscape design of
individual parcels shall also be consistent with the approved landscape design of the existing Auto
Park. Improvements and landscaping in the Main Street right-of-way and adjacent setbacks shall be
consistent with the Main Street Streetscape Master Plan.
V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS
The perfonnance standards of the Zoning Code shall apply to land uses in the Auto Park. In
addition, the following standards and conditions of operation shall apply to land uses in the Auto
Park.
A. Hours of Operation
The hours of operation/business hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday, Sunday, and federal holidays. The hours of operation
for collision repair facilities shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
B. Promotional Displays and Events
Promotional displays and events (Including signs listed in Section IILG.3.) may be allowed for each
dealership up to 60 days each calendar year subject to the review and approval of plans by the Zoning
Page 8 of 13
.JS
AUlD Park Nonh Specific Plan (PCM-02,04)
Administrator.
C. Deliveries and LoadingfUnloading
Deliveries and loading and unloading shall be prohibited in the public right-of-way.
D. Outdoor Speakers and Pagers
The use of outdoor speakers, intercoms, sound systems, and audible pagers shall be prohibited.
E. Test Driving
Each dealership shall submit a map designating areas for test driving to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval prior to occupancy. Test driving in residential areas shall be prohibited.
F. Canvash Facilities
Car washing within the Project area shall only be allowed at an approved carwash facility. Carwash
facilities shall include water recycling, and runofflpollution prevention features.
G. Facility Maintenance
Facilities, grounds, and appurtenant off-site improvements, including buildings, structures, signs,
landscaping, irrigation, parking lots, streets, medians, parkways, slopes, and drai~age systems shall
be maintained as provided in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (Section X).
H. Rideshare Incentives
Businesses shall provide employees with rideshare or alternative commuting incentives. Preferential
parking shall be provided for carpools and vanpools.
I. Lighting
Lighting plans shall be submitted as part of the Design Review process for the development of
individual lots. The lighting plans shall be consistent with the plan prepared by Spaulding Lighting,
dated December 14,2002. Non-security lighting shall be turned offby 10:00 p.m.
Page 9 of 13
j~
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02,04)
VI. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
A. Water
Development shall be consistent with the requirements of the Otay Water District and shall comply
with the following water conservation measures: 1) facilities shall be fitted with low flow water
fixtures, dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, high-efficiency dishwashers (in restaurants), air-cooled
ice machines (in restaurants), conductivity meters (on cooling towers), and pre-rinse sprayers (in
restaurants); 2) water efficient landscaping shall be used, including native vegetation and drought
tolerant plant materials; 3) water efficient irrigation systems shall be used, including
evapotranspiration (ET) controllers, rain sensors, soil moisture measuring devices, low flow emitters,
and drip irrigation; 4) carwash facilities shall be equipped with water-recycling features; 5) landscape
plans shall comply with the City Landscape Manual, including the preparation of a water
management plan; 6) reclaimed water shall be used when feasible; 7) all hot water pipes shall be
insulated; 8) pressure reducing valves shall be installed at all meters; and 9) all individual tenants
shall be sub metered. Other measures may be proposed pursuant to the City of Chula Vista Water
Conservation Plan Guidelines.
B. Wastewater
Sewer service to the Project site would be provided by the City, which operates and maintains its
own wastewater collection system, which connects to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Sewer.
System. A sewer study/analysis shall be prepared for all development within the Project. Any
necessary easements for the installation, operation, and maintenance of sewer facilities shall be
provided. A sewage participation fee and other applicable sewer fees shall be paid at the time of
connection to the public sewer.
C. Storm Water and Drainage
All development shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Stonn Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual and shall employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of
the stonn water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. In addition, all
development shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Pennit, including Standard Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plans
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. A Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)
shall be implemented concurrently with the commencement of any grading activities in the Project
area.
D. Solid Waste and Recycling
All development plans shall provide recycling and trash enclosures with sufficient capacity to
provide for the separate collection of trash, mixed paper, rigid container, and yard waste generated by
each business with not more than five weekly collection stops per material per week. Enclosures
shall be sized pursuant to the Recycling and Solid Waste Plan Guide. A solid waste and recycling
plan for each business shall be submitted to the Special Operations Manager forreview and approval
Page 10 of 13
37
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM,02,04)
prior to construction. Automotive businesses may take part in the City sponsored State Certified
Used Oil and Filter Drop Off Program.
E. Energy
Energy-efficient measures shall be incorporated into all development plans pursuant to established
building efficiency programs or a custom program using construction methods that exceed California
Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent.
F. Streets and Circulation
Main Street is designated as a prime arterial. The development of the Project site and appurtenant
off-site facilities shall be consistent with the standards and specifications for this roadway
classification, unless otheIWise modified by discretionary action.
Signalized intersections shall be provided at all Main Street intersections to allow for protected
turning movements. Street alignments and intersections shall be considered and coordinated with the
alignments and intersections of streets on the south side of Main Street.
Driveway access shall not be allowed along Main Street. The numbers and locations of driveway
approaches shall be minimized. Parallel on-street parking shall be allowed within the Project
boundaries.
Public transit improvements shall be integrated into the Project design as detennined by the
responsible transit agencies. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, bus turnouts,
shelters, and benches. Pedestrian, bicycle, and other transportation modes shall be accommodated as
appropriate or rcquired within the public right-of-way and on individual lots. All improvements
shall meet ADA requirements for parking and accessibility.
Page II of 13
38
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM-02,04)
VII. IMPLEMENTATION
A. The City's review of appl.ications and plans shall be governed by the provisions of this Specific
Plan, any existing or future agreements, the adopting ordinances and resolutions, and applicable
federal. state, or local ordinances.
B. Modifications to provisions of this Specific Plan maybe made by the Zoning Administrator upon
findings of substantial confonnance with this Specific Plan. Ifthe Zoning Administrator is unable to
make findings of substantial confonnance, then an amendment of this Specific Plan may be proposed
(Section IX).
C. Subsequent to the adoption of the Auto Park North Specific Plan and final map approvals,
development plans for individual parcels shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for
review and approval pursuant to the design review process of the Zoning Ordinance and prior to the
issuance of pennits for the parcel.
D. All required off-site improvements, including, but not limited to landscaping, medians, parkways,
streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, streetlights, traffic signals, signs, utilities, and other facilities,
services, and infrastructure, shall be completed prior to issuance of final occupancy.
E. All land divisions and consolidations, improvement plans, grading plans, landscape plans, and
building plans shall comply with local, state, and federal codes, regulations, standards, and
guidelines; this Specific Plan; and any existing or future agreements.
VIII. Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the Auto Park North Specific Plan,
pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), finding that the Project with mitigation will
not create significant environmental impacts. This environmental document shall be considered
adequate and no other environmental review shall be required for subsequent development plans,
provided the plans are in confonnance with the Auto Park North Specific Plan. The project revisions
and/or mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
shall be implemented by the Project and, where in conflict with the provisions of the Specific Plan or
other applicable policies, the MMRP shall apply.
IX. Amendments to the Specific Plan
The Auto Park North Specific Plan may be amended pursuant to applicable state and local laws,
codes, and regulations.
X. Auto Dealer Association
An auto dealer association shall be established and maintained for the duration of the Project. All
auto dealerships and other business and property owners within the Auto Park North Specific Plan
shall be required to maintain membership at all times with the association. Articles of incorporation,
by-laws, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared and submitted to the
Page 12 of 13
jf1
Auto Park North Specific Plan (PCM-02-04)
Redevelopment Agency for review and approval and shall take effect prior to occupancy.
The CC&R's shall include provisions for the maintenance and operation of dealerships and all other
land uses, including appurtenant rights-of-way and off-site facilities. These provisions shall include
maintenance standards for buildings, structures, signs, landscaping, irrigation, parking lots, private
streets, medians, parkways, slopes, drainage systems, and all other infrastructure.
XI. Enforcement
The provisions ofthe Auto Park North Specific Plan shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions for
enforcement contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Page 13 of 13
40
ATTACHMENT 5
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (15-02-006)
~{
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/2003
L./
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S-03-016 and Precise Plan
PCM-03-15 to allow for a mixed-use project that includes: (I) 40 lane homes
(condominiums); (2) nine loft apartments; (3) 9,000 square feet of retail
space; and (4) reductions in parking and open space. The project site is
located at 760 Broadway in the Central Commercial, Precise Plan (C-C-P)
zoning district. The Developers are Carter Reese Associates and Bitterlin
Development Corporation.
(
The project requires a Precise Plan in order to develop a functional mixed-use project on a 2.53-acre
undeveloped property. The project will provide opportunities for home ownership and rental units
and will introduce new commercial/retail uses that should compliment the existing uses in the area.
The Precise Plan will allow flexibility ofthe development standards that would enable the developer
to develop the property.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Precise Plan project. The Resource Conservation Commission recommended adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration on April 21,2003.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommends to the Redevelopment
Agency, adoption of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Precise Plan Ordinance,
based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the redevelopment of the mixed-use
project as described above.
DISCUSSION:
1. Background
The project site is located at 760 Broadway between 'J' and 'K' Streets and is currently vacant. The
site was previously developed with the Fuller Ford dealership. The Redevelopment Agency acquired
the property and is currently finalizing the sale of the property to the developer. The project is a
Precise Plan proposal for an urban in-fill mixed-use project that will be developed by the
development team of Carter Reese & Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation. Carter
Reese Associates have developed mixed-used projects in the City of San Diego inc1uding a
rctail/residential project in the Hillcrest area that is simi1ar to the proposed project at 760 Broadway.
The proposed project is one of two mixed-use projects currently proposed along Broadway. The
other mixed-use project is located at 825 Broadway and includes 41 affordable to low-income rental
apartments for senior citizens above retail/commercial uses.
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Residential
Zoning
C-C-P
CoT
CoT
CoT
R-I
Current Land Use
Vacant
Courtney Tires
Roadway Inn
Various retail/commercial
Residential
3. Proposal
The project will be developed on a 2.53-acre site that is within the City's Southwest Redevelopment
Area. The project includes 40 lane homes (condominiums), and nine loft apartments above 9,000
square feet of retail space. The lane homes will be located behind the loft/retail building. A 24-foot
driveway will separate the two uses. The homes are arranged in eight rows of five dwellings with an
east/west orientation, and are designed as three-story dwelling units consisting of a two-car garage
and family room at ground level with the remaining livable floor space at the second and third levels.
The homes range between 1,450 to 1,650 square feet. Each lane home will have approximately 400
square feet of open space, which consists of a balcony and rear yard. Although the lane homes will
appear as attached units there will be a narrow physical separation that will allow each unit to
function as an independent single-family dwelling.
The loft apartments will have a floor area of 1,150 square feet. Two carports containing six spaces
each will provide parking for the lofts. The lofts will be located above the rctail buildings and will
reach a height of approximately 40 feet. Two 1,020 square foot terraces will be built on top of the
carports to provide common open space for the loft residents. The terraces will be connected with an
above ground walkway located at the rear of the buildings that will allow access to the terraces and
lofts.
Other on-site improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking,
retaining walls and a 6-foot high masonry wall along the west property line.
4. Development Standards
The mixed-use development project has been evaluated using the CC zone development
standards for the retail/commercial component and the R - 3 zone standards for the residential
component.
Standards-CC-CZonel Minimum Reouired Pro nosed
Front Yard Setback 25 teet Retail: 10 feet'
Ex!. Side Yard Setback None None
Rear Yard Setback: None None
Hei!!ht: 45 feet Retail: 18 feet
Parkin!! (oft~street): 45 SDaces 46 SDaces
~
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
Standards (R-3 Zone) Minimum Proposed
Renuired
Front Yard Setback 15 feet Lane Homes: 80 feet
Lofts: 0 feet*
Side Yard Setback 17 feet Lane Homes: 9 feet*
Lofts: 70 feet
Rear Yard Setback: 15 feet Lane Homes: 3.5 teet*
Lofts: N/ A
Height: 28 feet Lane Homes: 35 feet*
Lofts: 40 feet*
Parking: SFD: 80 spaces Lane Homes: 80 spaces
Lofts: 14 snaces Lofts: 12 spaces*
*Requested flexibility from the CC and R-3 zones per Sections 19.56.040 and 041 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
ANALYSIS:
Precise Plan
Section 19.56.041(B) states that the property or area to which the P modifying district is applied to
an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different uses, and the development ofthe Precise
Plan will allow the area designated to coexist between land uses which might otherwise prove
incompatible. The zones surrounding the site include Thoroughfare Commercial (C- T) to the north
and south, which allows a variety of retail and commercial uses, and Single Family Residential (R-l)
to the west, which is developed with single-family dwellings.
The site is zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C-C-P) and is subject to the
development standards of the C -C and R-3 zone because the project is a mixed-use retail/commercial
and residential development. The development standards limit the developer's potential to maximize
the use of the site with the project. As a result, the project has been designed with a high density
rcsidential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with building encroachments into the required
setbacks, a reduction in the required common open space square footage for some residential units
and the reduction in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the
constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with a functional use to meet the policies of
the General Plan.
The mixed-use project's site design allows the proposed uses to function cohesively with the
surrounding uses, while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial
development for the general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan can
allow the project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to develop the site with a
fcasible mixed-use project.
General Plan Consistency
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM) and
with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10 Section 5.9, ofthe General Plan. This section states that
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
medium to high density residential development is potentially desirable along certain sections of
Broadway. The General Plan states that mixed-use development should consider access, appropriate
setbacks and screening from any adjacent non-compatible uses. and that implementation of this
policy should consider a special zone or land use overlay that would establish specific development
criteria for project design. The project's design and intent to maximize the use of the site with a
functional mixed-use project is slightly deficient in meeting the setback, residential parking and
common open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Precise Plan will allow the project
to deviate from the Zoning Ordinance development standards if the Planning Commission and the
Redevelopment Agency find that the project warrant the deviations in order to meet the objectives of
the General Plan.
Lane Home Setbacks:
The lane homes are subject to the R-3 development standards with regard to setbacks. The homes
will have 9-foot side yard and 5-foot rear yard setbacks from the north, south and west properly lines
respectively. In this case, the required side yard and rear yard setbacks are 17 feet and 15 feet
respectively therefore; the project does not meet the residential setback standards. Staff and the DRC
believe the reduction in the setback standards is warranted by the design and purpose of the project
and its relation to the surrounding uses.
Retail/Loft Building Setbacks:
The project is subject to the C-C zone 25-foot front yard setback requirement. The project proposes
a zero lot line setback from the public right-of-way along Broadway. The project does not meet the
building setback standards. However, the project's proposed front yard setback is similar to the
setbacks of other retail/commercial buildings along Broadway. The reduced setback for this mixed-
use project is in keeping with a more urban style of development envisioned for sections of
Broadway as part of the revitalization of this major thoroughfare.
Parking:
The project will provide 138 on-site parking spaces for the residential and retail uses. Approximately
20 additional parking spaces will be available on Broadway to provide additional parking, which
includes loading spaces for the retail/commercial uses. The Planning Commission and the
Redevelopment Agency in their consideration of the Precise Plan will decide on what the
appropriate parking should be. The C -C zone development standards require the project to provide
139 off-street parking spaces therefore; the project does not meet the parking standard. However, the
Precise Plan can allow the curbside street parking to compensate for the off-street parking shortage.
Two passageways that separate the retail building into three units have been designed to provide
adequate access for patrons who park at the rear of the retail buildings.
Common Open Space:
The project will provide private yards for each lane home unit and approximately 2,040 square
feet of common open space for the loft apartments. The open space consists of two above ground
r.f
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 51] 4/03
terraces (1,020 square feet each) that have been designed to for outdoor lounging and passive
recreation this calculates out to 226 square feet per unit. The residential component of the mixed-
use project is subject to the R-3 zone development standards. In this case, the common open
space requirement, which is 400 square feet per unit (400 s.f. x 9 units = 3,600 s.f.), applies to
the loft, therefore; the project does not meet the common open space standard. However, the Precise
Plan can allow for the common open space shortage in keeping with the urban concept proposed by
the project.
Staffhas researched other jurisdiction standards for open space and found that generally a lower ratio
is allowed for higher density projects. Typically, these standards range from 100 to 200 square feet
per unit. Based on this information, staff is recommending adoption ofthe modified standards for
the proposed terraces as meeting the open space requirements for the loft units. Additionally, each
unit has been designed with a balcony intended for private open space use.
CONCLUSION:
The mixed-use project is a unique urban-infill project that introduces new retail and residential uses
along Broadway. The project design and intent to maximize the use of the site with a functional
development does not allow the project to meet the development standards in the C-C and R-3 zones,
which include residential parking, common open space and building setbacks. However, the
deficiencies are minor therefore; staff is recommending approval of the deviations requested through
the Precise Plan. Staffbelieves that the project will enhance the area and potentially become a model
for architectural design for future development north ofL Street along Broadway. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approval of the Precise Plan to the Redevelopment Agency.
ATTACHMENTS:
Locator Map
2. Notice of Decision
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
4. Draft Redevelopment Agency Precise Plan Ordinance
5. Mitigated Negative Declaration
J'\Planning\Michael\PLT Reports\PCM-03-15
)
ATTACHMENT 1
\~ ,I
\ ~
------
,'-.......
'-.------
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ APPLICANT: CARTER REESE & ASSOCIATES MISCELLANEOUS W/INITIAL STUD....
PROJECT 0
ADDRESS: 760 BROADWAY Request: Precise Plan for a mixed-use project consisting
of retaiVcommercial with 9 loft apartments above and 40
SCALE: FILE NUMB"", condominiums at the rear on undeveloped contiguous parcels
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-15 Related Case(s): 18-03-016
i:\home\Dlannina\cherrvlc\locators\ocm0315.cc'r 11 'Jfi 07
ATTACHMENT 2
~~f?
~
:~~~
Design Review Committee
CITY OF
CHUIA VISTA
NOTICE OF DECISION
On PCM-03-15 (Urban Village)
Notice is hereby given that the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered
PCM-03-IS, a Precise Plan for a mixed-use project that includes 40 lane homes (condominiums)
and nine loft apartments over 9,000 square feet of retail space. The retail and apartments will
face Broadway and the lane homes will be located at the rear, adjacent to residential uses. The
project site is located in a Central Commercial, Precise Plan (C-C-P) zoning district.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project. The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) recommended adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration on April 21, 2003. The Design Review Committee recommends
approval of said request to the Planning Commission and City Council based upon the following
findings of facts and evidence:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the intent and the development
regulations of the C-C-P (Central Commercial within a Precise Plan Overlay) zone, the
General Plan and the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA).
The site will be developed with a mixed-use project that includes 49 residential units and
9,000 square feet of retail space. These uses have specific parking requirements. The
project's design and the developer's intent to maximize the use of the 2.S-acre lot by
developing the lot with a functional mixed-use project precludes the project from meeting the
development standards of the C-C zone with regarding to parking, building setbacks and
open space. The developer has designed the mixed-use project to be in substantial
conformance with the intent of the General Plan. thereby satisfying Section 19.56.040 of the
CYMC that a Precise Plan allows diversification and flexibility from the applicable
development regulations for a proj ect.
2. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
The design features are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfYing, the City
of Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM) and Landscape Manual. Currently, there are no
design requirements for Broadway. However, the mixed-use project has been designed to
accomplish the intent of the CVDM, and will introduce building architectural elements and
landscaping that will enhance the site's visual presence along Broadway.
7
PASSED AND APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 21 st day of April, 2003,
by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
John Schmitz, Zoning Administrator
Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary
y
2
ATTACHEMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 03-15
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-03-16) AND
APPROVE A PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-1S) ALLOWING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL MIXED-
USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN (C-C-P) ZONE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Precise Plan was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on November 13, 2002, by Carter Reese &
AssociateslBitterlin Development Corporation "Developer"; and
WHEREAS, said Developer requests approval of a Precise Plan to allow for a mixed-use
project that includes 40 lane homes (single-family dwellings) and nine loft apartments above
9,000 square feet ofretail/commercial space, open space and off-street parking. The project site
is located in a Central Commercial, Precise Plan (C-C-P) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration that has been
recommended for adoption by the Resource Conservation Commission on April 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Precise
Plan 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 14,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the Precise Plan application, the Planning Commission voted
_ to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-16) and approval of
the Precise Plan (PCM-03-15).
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-03-16) and Ordinance approving Precise Plan (PCM-03-15) in accordance with
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
9
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency and the Developer.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J\PlanmnglMichael\PC(' Reports\PCM-03-15
10
A TT ACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-15 KNOWN AS
BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE
HOMES AND NINE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SPACE.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of 40 lane homes and nine loft apartments above 9,000 square
feet ofretail/commercial space known as Broadway Urban Village, and located at 760 Broadway
("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2002, Carter Reese Associates and Bitteriin Development
Corporation ("Developers") filed a Precise Plan application with the Planning and Building
Department of the City ofChula Vista for a mixed-use project in the Central Commercial zoning
district ("Project"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled and advertised for April 21,
2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue at which time the Design
Review Committee voted 3-0 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-0 16) and approve the Precise Plan project based on the
findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in accordance with Planning Commission
Resolution (PCM-03-15); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May
14, 2003, and, after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented, voted to
recommend that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the ordinance approving the Project, in
accordance with the Development regulations shown in Exhibit "B" based on the findings listed
below; and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the
same; and,
fJ
Ordinance
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said Project, and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
the public hearing on this project held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting
there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and,
E. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and
notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city. and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
F. Discretionary Approvals and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same Redevelopment Agency meeting at which this Ordinance was
introduced on June 3, 2003, the Redevelopment Agency of the City Of Chula Vista approved
Ordinance Number _by which it approved a Precise Plan for a mixed-use project known as
Broadway Urban Village.
II NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City Chula Vista does hereby
find, determine and ordain as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03-016) has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City Of Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03-0 16).
INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (JS-03-
016) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista
and hereby adopt same.
IJ.
Ordinance
Page 3
B. PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS
1. That such use wilJ not under the circumstances of the particular casc 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 has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10
Section 5.9 of the General Plan, which encourages mixed-used development along
Broadway. The mixed-use project will introduce new retail uses, rental units and market
rate for sale dwelling units that wilJ provide an opportunity for homeownership in the
area. This will benefit the surrounding area economically, socially and aesthetically.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the P modifying district as set
forth in CVMC 19.56.041.
The site is zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C-C-P) and is subject
to the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone because the project is a mixed-use
retail/commercial and residential development. These deviations are warranted given the
constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with a functional use to meet the
policies of the General Plan.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the
Precise Plan.
Development of the lot using the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone would
limit the potential to maximize the use of the site with a mixed-use project. As a result,
the project has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for
the retail uses with building encroachments into the required setbacks, a reduction in the
required common open space square footage for some residential units and the reduction
in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the
constraints to the site and the intent to maximize the use of the property to meet other
policies of the General Plan. The parking reduction is mitigated by the availability of on-
street parking convenient to the retail uses proposed.
4. The approval ofthis plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the
City Of Chula Vista.
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area and Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan relative to
mixed-use development along Broadway. The Precise Plan as described, will allow the
project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Chula
Vista Municipal Code.
13
Ordinance
Page 4
C. TERMS OF GRANT OF PRECISE PLAN
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Precise Plan PCM-03-1S for project depiction
in Exhibit "A", and controlled by the Development Regulations in Exhibit "B", and
subject to the fol1owing conditions:
Planning and Building Department
1. The Developer shall install temporary erosion control devices including desilting
basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes and shoring during construction activities.
2. The Developer shall implement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Building and the City Engineer al1 mitigation measures identified in the 760
Broadway Village-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-016) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
3. The Developer shall submit the design and colors for all buildings prior to the
issuance of any building permits to the Planning and Building Department for review
and approval.
4. The Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division including
the following codes for 200 I:
. California Building Code
. California Plumbing Code
. California Mechanical Code
. California Electrical Code
. Energy Code
. Handicap Accessibility Code
5. The Developer shall submit a concept landscape plan for review and approval by the
City's Landscape Planner to include the following to satisfy the City requirements:
A. Plant IS-gallon Woody shrubs
B. 24-inch boxed sized street, accent and patio trees
C. Tree grates shall meet or exceed City requirements.
D. Any proposed street tree and planting design shall meet Public Works
operations standards.
E. Move the internal sidewalk towards the parking lot curb edge to provide large
usable planter areas.
Ii
Ordinance
Page 5
F. Provide additional landscape treatment to the building elevation that faces
Broadway.
G. Incorporate trellises or other architectural elements to storefronts.
H. Provide details of the storefront areas to indicate potential locations for street
furniture or sidewalk seating areas. Note: Any proposals that extend into the
City right-of-way will also require an encroachment permit from the City
Engineer.
1. Add canopy trees along the storefronts.
J. Bring the architectural paving shown inside the complex through the
passageways out into the Broadway elevation paving.
K. Provide a Water Management Plan per requirements of the City Landscape
Manual during building permit submittal.
6. The Developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a planned sign program from
the Director of Planning and Building prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permits.
7. The Developer shall establish Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and a
Home Owners Association for the residential uses on the properties.
8. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees including PAD fees as required by
Municipal Code Chapter 17.10.
9. Prior to leasing any retail space, the Developer shall submit written restrictions for
hours of operation for the tenants of the retail/commercial uses to the Director of
Planning for review and approval. The hours of operation shall be such that there is
no conflict with the residential units.
Engineering Department
10. The Developer shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and obtain a development penl1it to perform any work in the City's right of
way or public utility easements.
II. The Developer shall submit a detailed grading plan in accordance with the Chula
Vista Grading Ordinance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. The Developer shall ensure that the development of the Project complies with all
applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any
regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations
and requirements. The Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State
Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Pern1it
of Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction
('j
Ordinance
Page 6
and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall
identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures.
13. The Developer shall ensure that the development complies with the NPDES
Municipal Pennit Order No. 2002-01 requirements and apply Standard Urban Stann
Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. Adequate provisions
shall be made in the planning and design stages of the project to facilitate compliance
with such requirements.
14. The Developer shall obtain a grading permit in accordance with the Subdivision
Manual and Grading Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building pennits.
15. The Developer shall be required to complete the applicable forms and comply with
the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual.
16. The Developer shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the
pollution of storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction.
Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and
shall be shown on the plans. Any constmction and non-structural BMPs requirements
that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans.
17. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NEPDS Municipal
Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all projects falling under the
Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard
Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
18. The Developer shall identify storm water pollutants that are potentially generated at
the facility, and purpose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
implemented to prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems.
19. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical or soils engineer to
determine soil conditions and to provide foundation and pavement recommendation
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
20. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the Developer shall submit a
Constmction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) per the City of Chula Vista's
Storm Water Management Standards Manual.
21. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the Developer shall submit a
Geotechnical Investigation.
22. A drainage study shall be prepared, which demonstrates the amount of flows
contributed by the Project and the adequacy of facilities to handle the flows. Post-
development flows shall not exceed pre-development flows. In addition, the project
shall be designed such that flows are directed away from neighboring properties.
16
Ordinance
Page 7
23. A hydrology study shall be required at the first submittal of grading/improvement
plans that demonstrates that post-development flow rate does not exceed the pre-
development flow rate at the outlet of the site.
24. The Developer shall apply Best management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of
the storm drain systems during and after construction.
25. Water quality and watershed protection principals shall be incorporated into the
design of the project. Such measures shall minimize the discharge of pollutants into
the storm drainage systems.
26. A water quality study shall be required demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipal Permit including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSM)
and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements.
Special Operations
27. The Developer shall develop and implement an integrated solid waste and recycling
plan acceptable to the Special Operations Manager. The plan shall be designed to
divert at least 50 percent of the waste stream generated by the project through
participation in the City's residential recycling, yard waste, bulky pick up and
household hazardous waste programs outlined in Sections 8.24 and 8.25 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Sweetwater Authority
28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the
Chula Vita Fire Department stating fire flow requirements and submit the letter to the
Sweetwater Authority for review.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
29. The Applicant shall pay the appropriate school fees prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Standard Conditions
30. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this Ordinance shall be grounds for
revocation or modification of development permits.
31. This development 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
Ordinance to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
32. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require approval
from the Redevelopment Agency.
I;
Ordinance
Page 8
33. The Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
hannless the City, Redevelopment Agency, Council members, its officers, employees
and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses. damages.
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval
of the Precise Plan, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other pennit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of a facility pennitted hereby,
including, without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Developer shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Precise
Plan where indicated below. Developer compliance with this provision is an express
condition of this Precise Plan and this provision shall be binding on any and all of
applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
34. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the final approved
plans which will include revised site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials
and color board, and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division, the conditions
contained herein, and the Chula Vista General Plan.
35. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of
the Municipal Code, and a1l other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building pennit issuance.
36. This Precise Plan pern1it shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this pennit to advance a legitimate
governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose
after advance written notice to the Pennittee and after the City has given to the
Pennittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However. the City, in exercising
this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the
Pern1ittee of a substantial revenue source which the Pennittee cannot, in the nonnal
operation of the use pennitted, be expected to economically recover.
37. The Developer shall be responsible for the building and landscaping maintenance in
accordance with the approved project and landscape plans unless the Redevelopment
Agency approves modifications.
E. EXECUTION AND RECORDA TTON OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said
execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be
recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. at the sole expense of the
property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stan1ped copy returned to the City Clerk
If
Ordinance
Page 9
and Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded
document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shaJl 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. Said document
will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No.
Signature of Property Owner
of 760 Broadway
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
F. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Ordinance is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shaJl be deemed to be automaticaJly revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
III. APPROV AL OF PRECISE PLAN
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby approve the Precise Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A",
and including property Development Regulation for Broadway Urban Village, as represented in
Exhibit "B".
Ill!. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shaJl take effect and be III full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista, California, this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the foJlowing vote:
(c;
Ordinance
Page 10
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Laurie Madican, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
Steve Padilla, Chair
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 3rd day of June 2003 and its
second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the
_ day of 2003.
Executed this _ day of _ 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
;),{)
Exhibit "A"
BROADWAY
DE!;I~NAnD,OAD'NGlotl!(]O')
;I<"''''m,,'(R
O~IV~/lY
! ?~"
If!
\\i
'... \ \ \,
-REi AfL/9.000 S.r:~
lOFTS OVER/9@ 1 150 S F.
_.
.
""
I'A~~(iI(;- 1
. ~
,.. , ~
. [ .. I !
,.~,o'.f !
.. II ~
!.m,oIJ ~
c.J
] m .
~:. ~ < 1.'~crG
.~~~
~fJ II '-6T>'P
'i, ,\,!.1" '.~~i'';}
.! '> ] -"
L II J
.. . r I ~\ou
eLl
Exhibit "B"
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Broadway Urban Village
The following chapter details the specific development standards and regulations for
development and individual residential lot improvements, the loft apartments and the
commercial/retail buildings within Broadway Urban Village. This Precise Plan is
intended to work in conjunction with the development standards in the City of Chula
Vista's Zoning Ordinance (Title 19). Any information not shown within the Precise
Plan should be referenced in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.28
Apartment Residential (R - 3) zone and Chapter 19.3 6 Central Commercial (C -C)
zone.
Residential
1. Allowed Uses
Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the R-3 zone as permitted uses,
accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical
substations and gas regulators.
2. Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings
within the R-3 zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table I
are allowed. Where in conflict with the R-3 zone development standards, the
standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular
item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the R-3 zone development standards
shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements
are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "A") shall supercede the R-3 zone
requirements.
CommerciallRetail
1. Allowed Uses
Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the C-C as permitted uses,
accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical
substations, gas regulators and any automobile related uses.
d-d..
2. Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings
within the C-C zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table ]
are allowed. Where in conflict with the C-C zone development standards, the
standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular
item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the C-C zone development standards
shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements
are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "A") shall supercede the C-C
zone requirements.
~
TABLE 1
Precise Plan
Development Standard for Lane Homes
Lot Criteria
Lot area (minimum) 1,200 s.f.
Lot coverage (maximum) 70 percent
Lot depth (minimum) 50 feet
Lot width (minimum) 24 feet
FAR (maximum) 1.67 percent or
2,011 s.f.
Setbacks from Property Lines
Front yard (minimum) None required
Side yard (minimum) None required
Rear yard (minimum) 15 feet
Maximum heiqht 35 feet
No accessory structures are N/A
permitted on individual lots
Parking 2-car
aarages/unit
Minimum open space 390 s. f./unit
Fencing 6 feet
(3.5-foot high
wood/2.5-foot
high lattice)
Development Standard for Lofts/Retail Uses
Building Setbacks
Front yard (minimum) None required
Side yard (minimum) None required
Rear yard (minimum) 24 feet
Maximum height 45 feet
Parking (lofts apartments) 1.5 per unit
Parking (retail/commercial) 1 space per
200 s.f.
Minimum open space for lofts 2,050 s.f.
Notes: Table I figures are based on the information provided on the approved Precise Plan
..Ly
- ,
A TT ACHMENT 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
760 Broadway ViIlage
PROJECT LOCATION:
760 Broadway
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
571-200-13 through 16
571-200-36 through 58
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Carter Reese & Associates; Bitterlin Development Corporation
CASE NO.:
IS-03-0 16
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
April 11, 2003
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of a vacant 2.53-acre site located in an urbanized area in the central western
portion of the city of Chula Vista, at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Area (see
Exhibit A - Location Map). The project site has previously been graded and developed for an auto
dealership and service center.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the fo11owing:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Retail Use (Tire Shop)
Motel
Broadway/Col1)jJ1ercial retail uses
Single-Family Residences
B. Proiect Description
The property site is currently owned by the City of Chula Vista pending sale of the site to the
applicant upon approval of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of 40 single-family
detached condominium lane homes with three bedrooms. two-car garages and 400 square-foot rear
yards in the rear portion of the site, and 910ft residential condominium flats above 9,000 square feet
of retail space rronting Broadway (see Exhibit B-Site Plan). The total proposed on-site parking is 139
spaces including the 40 two-car garages. The redevelopmcnt of the project site would include
landscape treatments, lighting, drainage facilities. paved pzrking lot, street repaIr. right of way
Improvements, retaining wa]]s and fencing along rearyards of row homes. Existing retaining wa]]
along the west to remain and existing retaining wa]] along the sourhside to remain and be raised to 6-
feet. The project site is within the CCP (Central Commercia! "'recise Plan) Zone and CR (Retail
Commercial) General Plan designation. The proposal requires "pproval of Design Review, Precise
Plen. Special Use Permit and Tentative Map.
Tne proposed grading quantities are 3,500 cubic yards cut Jnd 1.000 cubic yards fi]], resuJting in
2.500 nc: cubic yards of export.
~s-
'.
- '.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The existing zoning of the project site is CCD Zone (Central Commercial DistrictJPrecise Plan) and
the General Plan designation is CR (Commercial Retail). The proposed project is consistent with the
existing zoning and General Plan designation of the property.
D. Public Comments
On February 25, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on March 6, 2003. No public comments
were received during the Notice ofInitial Study public comment period.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist fonn) detennined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report wi]] not be required. This Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
Noise
Dudek and Associates, Inc. prepared the "Broadway Mixed-Use Traffic Noise Assessment" for the
proposed project, dated April 10, 2003. The identified noise generators associated with the proposal
consist of the primary noise source, traffic noise from Broadway, and distant traffic noise along
Interstate 5, local roads and nearby commercia1/retail uses.
Proposec residential development consists of second-story lofts facing Broadway and single-family
lane homes immediately to the east. Noise attenuation associated with the intervening
commercia1/residential building would partially shield the lane homes that are most affected by traffic
noise from Broadway, those adjacent to the main project driveways. With the noise attenuation
associated with the partial shielding provided by the intervening buildings, the noise level at these
lane homes would be 63 dB CNEL or less. This noise level would comply with the 65 dB CNEL
exterior noise criterion.
The City of Chula Vista has not adopted any specific numerical noise/land use compatibility levels to
establish significance criteria. However, as a matter of policy, the City employs the noise guideline
levels set forth in the No;s~ Element of the City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. The
City's exterior noise level ctandard for noise-sensItive areas, which include residences, school play
areas, and outdoor recreallonal areas is 65 CNEL. The City's exterior noise standard for office
buildings and commercial property is 70 CNEL.
State Building Code (Pan 2, Title 24) requires that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dB CNEL for
multi-family units. An illteric.c noise analysis wi]] be required for the lofts and the lane homes prior to
issuance of building pennits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
Compliance with the mitigation measures contained below in Section F would avoid significant
interior noise impacts to the lofts and lane homes.
~fo
2
.
. 'j
Traffic/Circulation
Existing Conditions - Impact Analysis
According to the "Traffic Impact Analysis1760 Broadway-Chula Vista", prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan, dated January 16,2003. the residential portion of the project is calculated to generate 490
Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 37 AM peak hour trips and 49 PM peak hour trips. The retail
portion of the proposed project is calculated to generate 720 ADT with 30 AM peak hour trips and 72
PM peak hour trips. The total project is calculated to generate 1,210 ADT with a total of 67 AM peak
hour trips and 121 PM peak hour trips at the project access driveways. The existing traffic volume on
the segments of Broadway fronting the site is 21,900 ADT (LLG 2002).
Proposed vehicular access to the project site is via two un signalized driveways connecting directly
to Broadway. Broadway is classified as a Four-Lane Major Arterial running north and south.
Broadway currently provides two lanes of travel per direction with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane
(TWLTL) median in front of the project site. No bike lanes are provided on either side and bus
stops run intermittently along Broadway.
The intersections of Broadway/J Street and Broadway/K Street are signalized. J Street is classified
as a Four-Lane Major Street; no bike lanes are provided and bus stops are provided intermittently
along both sides of the roadway. K Street is classified as a Class II Collector Street; no bike lanes
or bus stops are provided along K Street. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, tile street
segments of Broadway from J Street to K Street and J Street from 1-5 to Broadway currently
operate at Level-of-Service (LOS) A. The signalized intersections at BroadwayIJ Street and
Broadway /K Street currently operate at Level-of-Service (LOS) C during both the AM and PM
peak hours.
Existing Conditions PillS Proposed Project
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis. with project-added traffic, Broadway from J Street to K
Street would carry 23,110 ADT and would operate at LOS Band J Street from 1-5 to Broadway
would carry 16,750 ADT and would operate at LOS B; therefore, both street segments would
operate within the LOS "c" City threshold standards. The existing signalized intersections at
Broadway/J Street and Broadway/K Street are expected to continue to operate at LOS C. during
both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic.
Based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis. no significant traffic/circulation impacts
would result from the proposed project.
GeophysIcal
The project site has been previously graded and developed with a full-service car dealership. The
preliminary grading plans indicate the proponent plans to cut 3,500 cubic yards and fill 1,000 cubic
yards. resulting in 2,500 net cubic yards of export. According to the Engineering Department,
grading to accommodate the proposed project would require a grading pennit.
o::L7
3
. '.
The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading
permit as a standard engineering requirement. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards
associated with the project site. The project site lies approximately 1.0 mile to the west of the La
Nacion Fault Zone. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, project
compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building
safety/seismic concerns.
The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts
downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the
preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The
implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be
required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-0 I. An portions of the development area
disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in
compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance
with BMPs and NPDES Order No. 2001-01 would be required and would be monitored by the
Engineering Department. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage channel.
would be less than significant.
Water
A final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and
improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There is an existing curb inlet located east of
the project site, along Broadway. The proposed drainage facilities include sheetflowing into the
existing 30" and 18" storm drains off-site towards Riverlawn Avenue to the west and the
abandonment of the existing 30" storm drain on-site.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water Quality and watershed protection principles shall be
incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall be designed to minimize discharge
of pollutants into the storm drainage systems. Preliminary BMPs are proposed along the western
property line of the project site. The submittal of a formal drainage study would be required prior
to the issuance of construction per~its to demonstrate that existing infrastructure would be adequate
to serve the project. Pre-construction and post-construction storm water pollution best management
practices (BMPs) will be required to be incorporated into the final grading plans. According to the
City Engineering Department, no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are
anticipated to result from the proposed development.
Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required per the City of Chula Vista's
Storm Water Management Standards Manual. prior to the issuance of a construction permit.
Compliance with provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality BMPs would be
required. Based upon the project design, conditions of the Precise Plan and standard engineering
requirements. storm drainage and water quality impacts would be reduced less than significant.
Air Quality
Based upon the relatively minor amount of site grading that would be necessary to accommodate the
proposed development and the amount of project-generated traffic that is anticipated, the proposal
would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation. The proposed project would potentially generate sufficient construction vehicle
emIssions and dust during construction-related operations to result in a short-term significant, but
~
4
. '.
mitigable. impact to air quality. Fugitive dust would be created during construction operations as a
result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on W1paved surfaces. Dust control during grading
operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San
Diego Air PolIution Control District and the California Air Resources Board. Compliance with the
mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentialIy significant impact to
below a level of significance.
Hazards
Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) impacted soils present on-site associated with
hydraulic hoists that were operated in conjunction with the fonner auto repair facility on-site and
subsequently removed were analyzed. According to the Soil Characterization Report prepared by
Dudek and Associates dated March 2003, native soil totaling approximately 1100 cubic yards was
stockpiled on the northwest comer of the project site in 1998 for the purpose of creating a
bioremediation celI to treat the TRPH impacted soils.
Previous soil investigations prepared by SECOR International Incorporated, dated November 9,1998,
indicated the presence of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) in the treatment celI soil.
At the request of the applicant, a soil characterization study of the soil was conducted on December 4,
2002 anc completed in February 2003 by Dudek and Associates. Inc.
The highest TRPH concentration among the soil samples colIected on December 4, 2002 was located
in the northeast comer of the project site at a depth of 3 feet. TRPH concentrations detected in the
stockpiled soil in December 2002 are comparable to TRPH concentrations detected in 1998. Based
on the San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Division and the San Diego County Waste
Management regulations, and other reviewing regulatory agency requirements, TRPH impacted soil
can be managed in two ways: I) the removal and disposal of the soil off-site in compliance with San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) regulations; or 2) capping the soil on-site
in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements for on-site
containment. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce
potentialIy significant impacts associated with development on TRPH impacted soils to below a level
of significance.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Noise - Interior
I. Interior acoustical analyses for both the residential lofts and lane homes shalI be submitted by the
applicant prior to the issuance of building pennits to ensure that the interior noise levels would
not exceed 45 dB CNEL to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Building Official.
~i,-01.:'.lliY
2. Oust reducmg measures shalI include watering of graded surfaces in accordance with the most
stringent County of San Diego Air PolIution Control District and California Air Resources Board
rul.", and regulations and the restriction of alI construction vehicles and equipment to travel along
e,:te':>lished and regularly watered roadways at specified speeds.
3. During construction, stockpiled materials that can potentialIy become airborne shalI be covered or
watered in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air PolIution Control District
and California ..\ir Resources Board rules and regulations.
~r
5
. .
4. During construction, dirt and debris shal1 be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to
reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material.
Approach routes to the construction area shal1 be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and
debris.
5. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of
aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer
than six inches ITom the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides,
front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shal1 not extend, at its peak, above any
part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.
6. Construction equipment shal1 be tuned prior to the start of construction and shal1 be maintained in
proper working order in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of low pol1utant-emitting
construction equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, shal1 be used as practical.
7. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shal1 be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour.
Hazards
8. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, the applicant shal1 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
City Environmental Review Coordinator that the TRPH impacted soils stockpiled on-site will be
properly managed prior to site development in accordance with one of the fol1owing two options:
a. Option #l/Orr-Site Disposal
TRPH impacted soils shal1 be hauled offsite and disposed of at a Class III landfill. Copies of al1
laboratory data and waste manifests, or other transportation documents generated for the soil
disposal. must be submitted to the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health
(DElI) to demonstrate the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soils.
b. Option #2/0n-Site Containment
The applicant shal1 enter the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
Site Assessment and Mitigation Voluntary Assistance Program and obtain a closure or
concurrence letter ITom DEH acknowledging the proper containment of the TRPH impacted soils
on site and submit a copy of the closure or concurrence letter to the City Environmental Review
Coordinator.
TRPH impacted soils can be left undisturbed in its original location, however, the current surface
condition of the stockpile would require construction of a surface liner or cap to prevent rainfal1
infiltration and/or surface water runoff. The soil can be moved to another location on-site and
col1ectively placed within a containment area employing certain engineering controls to contain
the soil in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Resolution No.
95-63 for the on-site disposal of TRPB impacted soils.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City ofChula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi. Planning and Building
-::;0
6
Paul HeHman, Planning and Building
Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building
Brad Remp, Planning and Bui]ding
Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building
Frank Herrera-A. Planning and Building
Garry WiHiams, Planning and Building
eJifford Swanson, Engineering
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Dave Kaplan, Engineering
Joe Gamble. Building & Park Construction
G. Edmonds, Fire Department
Richard Preuss, Police Department - Crime Prevention
Applicant:
Carter Reese & Associates; Bitterlin Development Corporation
Others:
Sweetwater Authority
Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Broadway Mixed-Use Traffic Noise Assessment, Dudek and Associates, Inc., April 10,2003.
Traffic Impact Analysis/760 Broadway-Chula Vista, Linscott Law & Greenspan, January ] 6,
2003.
Soil Characterization Report/760 Broadway-Chula Vista prepared by Dudek and Associates, Inc.,
dated March 2003.
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this
project is avai1able from the Chub Vista Planning and Bui]ding Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 9]910.
Date:
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
3/
7
. ,
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGA nON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
760 Broadwav Villa5<e - IS-03-016
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed 760 Broadway Village mixed-use commercial/residential
project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative
Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-016). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that
adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative
Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
I. Noise
2. Air Quality
3. Hazards
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator,
Building Offical and City Engineer. Evidence in written fonn confinning compliance with the
mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-016 shall be provided by
the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator, Building Official and City Engineer.
The Environmental Review Coordinator, Building Official and City Engineer will thus provide
the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declardtion IS-03-016, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to detennine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along '.vith the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date ofilJsp~ction is provided in the last column.
J :\Planmng'Jvl A RI A \Ini tia1 Study\IS-03-0 16MMRPtexLdoc
:3>1..
I'
,.:
"
l,
,'.
,.
-
{~:
'f-,
R.
~
to
o
::;;
c
o
.z;
"
...,
~
11,:,' ~i. ......... -'6. ~ "
.. 0> 0> 0> " "
j) ~.Hhg ~ .S c " ",0 ",0 ",0
'n .c "i G~
l;,:~i " "6 ~ '6~
.0> " ~~ ~.- ~.t:
0" 1-" Cl-" ';:)..~ ~.- "'0;
I':v '" '0 ",- \3~
~Q. ': ",0> 3g ",0> \3~ \3"
"'= \3" \3" .- " .- "
& p \3" ,,;:u.J'"6-. ._w..- .- " -0."& 0."01
\...~'" Ii'; .~w-' 0..>>0- 0.."61
0.'" 0.>00. o.~Q) ;t6~ ~~ ~& 2"&
,~a ~6g 2:<30
;'.oJ
'S',,~;.(
,,"0
",-, '" '"
" "'~ >< ><
-0 ~c:)(
o .; ~o
~~ 00
'E~ -'
..~ '"
~'Qj - '"
'" "- 0
0
,.
'"
,.;
%
..
~
o
<.>
\ t.
:1), I
I,
~;:::' I"~
,c., ..."
,,['
" ,1
0
'"
"
'"
f.\
v
'"
-%
0-
f
o
()
"
;~
~"
,cr
o
It-
0..
C)
%.
~
o
0..
'Ii
o
~
C)
%.
"
o
~
o
~
%.
o
~
C)
E
~
..-
<I>
~
I-
o~ \"
-o'i
~.~
~~
::E~
<Q
~
o
c0
o
J1
\
'"
~
\
"%
~!~
"6 6"0 ~ 9
rn~~t ~
~ 'O'j'j 5 3: -%\-
~,~~'s'~ g
&\:si!f1<to
'6 " " "
0 0 0
"8 "5 .~ fj
"
" - " 0.
0. 0. 0. '"
"' " '" EO
EO EO EO
:2l ~ "
~ if>
tfJ tfJ tfJ
'" ><
'"
u
""
"
""
" "
0 0
'" '"'8
..,
" "
0. 0.
~ "'
EO S
! ~
tfJ tfJ
",__"0> _ ~o ~ ~ ~ 0 oo>~3~
..~,.' - ,_ ..'_' 00'
.,'." ' . to > ..,~ ' ,....
,."" ,._' ,., .0 .,.. . ....,
"",.. 0.'. ,g' .,.b'" .".".
..g_.' "_' ..... ..b,I-- -......
_Q)W_ 300"%- "G~$~ ,,~~o_tS B29"-"~~
~~~~-"" 3 ,,0 tfJ'"--" '" o."",_,"e
~o;_-o'" .""~_ BEo'" le-c~...8".".~'"
.~~~:~ -",e~~ 3""'-- ~_"'I$"'~o~'c-ee~~~
___-c'" _,," """-,,,0 oo>~-",,,o _o.",,,o.~ N
"~..,,, .~8o~~!.i~ oZ8uEU,.",1-3Wi'"
~~~;~1 ~~""gi~' ,..<~%."".~,!
o"'~~- _"'m.... - _"'c- ., ~_"~,,,"o.
..~,-- . ....-". .--....- ......
~"'c~~. E_"u~.._-- ,,~-,,- ~cmeo."'~
_ ~__ .'-';:;0>,,\1- '" /08."""'0."'o.u' ~
=1.... .......... ..bl........,.
" __.. =,,_""~~U ~~ ~g._ ~~o~D.~~-m
~~8~~3 ~Eo~)i~~IIB ~~j'I~~~:';~9'i
"'30"%~8."'C._"'~E-~~""..-U-~EU~.'"
~8~~~~ ~~c8,,~.9 "~~,,E"_Ds"t~~O>i"'S
~c.-"~ ,,,f; ~ ,c"-'6~- " ot"'~G"'"._.s c3
ID22~i c,,-"'c_'6o"""if;g,c~,,~_9"E2~""
,,_ "," OE_O~-Oo."'."'- m,,_"oo"coE-""
..'_0' ..........................
~~~~~D~ Sg"go~S~~~0"E3%~~S'6~~C~~~%i3
......- ..' ., . .-.~~..' ...--.,.
,...... . ,...............-.......
..-.... .............._.....,.....
i.III..I.II~I.I.lilli;~:II.I......
~_i..I..,..........................
.............0..'.............-...
"
-
~
~
"
'"
C
o
."
"
co
."
i
..... iDe
tA.g :5,%
~~~g:o
_c.s...Jo
~ ro......W 0
.~~.Gt3o
~g-~ra"t
</} ::J ",,'-
<3)SV)lO~
,-~c-:tCL
Q) >1)) -0-
,s.ogCJ$
cG~~8~
g ~"E ~ E
....~...........c
g.g~gg
.'!l t/I 01""0 ~ .
'g..~~=-u.Jro
__..... 0 '0
~,:::'S3~~
~2.D!!J.uO
S ~o ~ ~ ~
'0';:; $ 'B~::~
-t;; '; S C. 0> 0 c:=-
~. g~ ~'6 g&
co \'l) ;7, Co'D Z'
u.1 ..... c..-...... ro'-
{/) .g~~.g~O
(5 oJ.)-O- <3)'.;:>-0
Z 'S%.9:;~~
-<i
~
'"
.n
CO
0'"
.~ ~
"'~
~~
::E"
::E
ci
N
~3
~
-E
B
'c
o
:::;
c:
.Q
ro
~
a>
c
y
"5
'"
,~-g -'
~~l1J~
co a> E
('pot
._ C CI)
-c..ca..
a.E?: OJ
<(Q.O
~
)~O
CD';;
€J~
".
00
~
Q)
:5
<\I
I-
'd:i'~
D:gx
.:>:0
-~'.i-_
,.,:;.
"~':'
:-<"~
>, $ is
g-o~ - om~
00(1)- g -oo~
~o3~ ~ B&foffi
g,-ro8c'?:-E cu.-Q)c
_~IDO--- c"ua..
In...... '-'5 o3.:02C'!:!?
.E'E~ol1),--(].),-.-a>-o
w.c':; c-E'~'~ g !I?:92
55~"6 8.9uHfO 5 ~.V)
cD
~
o
M
o
gg
~
=1
i
~\
g\
r--,
. ~,
_rti 0
roc 2~
.c Q) '(i) OJ
~E OC
c t: \1).......-
IJe'Oo5
c..~ ~ .\5.~
g-LU.s'OQ)
N ~ 0 ~:S
-::;0 R~o
.,Ja>Ero
.E:Si E ~
$"6a...~~
0.. cO::: ~;'=
OJ 0 I- a.. 3:
.SD ~ ~ Q)
-0 ro.... a.. I.)
~~i15~ ~
ro-mcE=5
Qw.93:~
~5 ~~ ro
cg:cl{l.s
roa.>'-c....
:;)....go~
~ ~u"O E
~ g 3:~ Cl.ih
.<=> 0 Q) 0..Q c
oE'>TI~g
tr~~~~g.
<J)
o
0::-
~
:r:
<>i
~\
-',
o
~
0;
""
Q
:;;
c
.g
" "'6
~ -g Q).c-
o ro :5 ~ ~
0. oroo
.!Q.rq~....-.$: a.
-proc"......!:!:!
,,"OQ)2-ro"'O
c~E~cTI
ro 0 :;) E Q) C
QJrog.DEttI
~o-o~cg
~..aCQ)e=
omo.o'--o
-o===_~c
!1)(ij CI).:I>w'"':I
-S-5E-::
~~g-~~8.
~.E.~mgp'
_o.;:.oEo.
rn U ... ;];t ill
~....;.s '6 [:5
~~ ~o~~ .
~~~:~~~
-o-115cco
CD == (I) 6 0 <n
-g:;J2oo~-g
'" (,11';=- "-'......
0. ro (;j" 0 D m
Eo Q)cnoc
.- E-ro.tP.-E
I m Q) ,--OS: (\<
~roU;~CtLC
~o~~~g8
o
'"
"'"\
I
~
E iE <5
err: ~
.....1-:J3:-
o 2 CD 8,92
.~~ ~Q)~<3 ~
ocnca;oQ)oc
c_.ffiu~:S-
roI'Ci) ~ Q)"6~
U)WCf)\::E>,ID
oe.4:D.~g.E
.?:-:E~CCue
cro-8oro.-
::!<uc u.....>
8I-6 0 $'E~
Q)ro> ~ a..-g >-
.c:cc~e.<J};:;
..... Q) 0 o.-p '-'
d>E~-8Q)c~
cCo> :5~-
Q) e~ CtI OJ2 0
='s;.",==.s C'--
(1] co::;. ro.- {/'j '-
-tiUJ-g:o.g3~
_COOCD{/'jQ)
c.o......-o~:aQ;,.;
13c~~g~u.9
'O.EEETI""2~~
o.-e ~ ~ CtI t5 :; 'i3
ro ro Q) O)I ro 1.).....
~g-~EUJQ.68
I-_O.::(CLO.S 00
.0
3Y-
0113 ,-.$ '0
5:i2 VI 11)-
._ ro c Q) 2' Q)
~~3Q :5c~
<J}CtI)CDt: 0'
~o'toomSoc
.S 0 ::J ro:;::; ~!!! 0
Q)1l)'t.rotl)c:~Q)
-ouro:;)g--S'@.c.
Q) ro .:1>_ C =-.......
-E't:Q'-.....Q)oQ(;
::I ~ Q. Q) E.... ......
v;~5"O:S.SE:!CD('")
._c:.,.-coroo.....<D
"'OlJ)uroc.........cuJ,
st:2crocc3-O"J
~a(j)g28S-ci;ti
2 Q) a~"D ro Q)gz'o
Q)..co~~.SS.2c:1I)
.o-_Q) c 0-5''- 010"0
c '-.~'- E'- :E Q) :z:; .$
mQ)::!:::: ~cet:::Ju
u ~ C"~ ID-o'r>>Q.jO g"
.:!l3~.s.o~C.:S~E
.02:2 ~ ~~ Q):soc.-
VI ::::I..... 0 o..c._.......I
-g g ~ &;'3~~ 3=000-
u'~Q)~U>~Q)5g~
~\3:o.o.~.t ~@3o
EQ~OI--Q)c-oo::-
i ro B ~~ :c; .~ 8:;; ~
a...~II)~o~Cigro~
~.g.s (5 2 ~ ~.sg:6
~,
u
co
~
0.,
u
o
~
B
~
;:::
;:::
'<>
<;>
M
o
~
-;,
""
3
C/O
:g
~
'<
@
-<
~
g>
S
a
~
Case No.IS-03-016
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
Carter Reese & Associates
Bitterlin Development Corporation
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
3636 Fifth A venue
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 686-5959
2256 San Diego A venue
Suite 121
San Diego, CA 92103
4.
Name of Proposal:
760 Broadway Village
5.
Date of Checklist:
April 10, 2003
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
UsSthan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
II
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
o
o
o
II
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
Comments:
a) Under the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project site is designated CCP
(Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and is zoned CR (Retail Commercial). The project site is
located within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The proposal has been reviewed and has
been found to be consistent with the Zoning and General Plan designations of the project site
and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan.
b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies.
Furthermore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve
I ~)
area of the Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan,
dated October 2002.
c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in
agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources.
d) The proposed development of a mixed-use project would not disrupt or divide the established
adjacent community or surrounding commercial, office, or residential environment.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required
Potentially
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 181 0
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181
housing?
Comments:
a) The proposed mixed-use project would have no effects upon regional or local population, as
it is a relatively minor infill project with a total of 49 dwelling units.
b) See Section II.a.
c) The existing project site does.l1ot contain any housing; therefore, no displacement of
existing housing or removal of affordable housing would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements. compaction or 0 0 181 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 181 0
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181
sands, or changes in siltation. deposition or ~6
2
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments~ See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures required.
IV.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
j) Suhstamial reduction in the amount of water
othe! ....ise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaDy
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a) The prot'csed gradmg and development of the vacant site would result in changes in
absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. There is an
existing curb inlet located east of the project site, along Broadway. The proposed drainage
facilities include sheetflowing into the existing 30" and 18" storm drains off-site towards
Riverlawn Avenue to the west and the abandonment of the existing 30" storm drain on-site.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water Quality and watershed protection principles
shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall be designed to
3
37
minimize discharge of pollutants into the stonn drainage systems. Preliminary BMPs are
proposed along the western property line of the project site. The submittal of a formal
drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of construction permits to
demonstrate that existing infrastructure would be adequate to serve the project. According to
the City Engineering Department, no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system
are anticipated to result from the proposed development.
b) The project site is beyond the limits of the 5OD-year floodplain and is not in proximity to any
bay or ocean or in low-lying areas; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water
related hazards would result from the proposed development.
c) Through construction permit conditions of approval, the proposed project would be required
to implement construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), where
applicable, in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual in order to prevent pollution of downstream water bodies.
d) Based on the size and nature of the proposed mixed-use development, and the location of the
project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes in the
amount of surface water in any water body, in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters.
e) See IV.d. above.
1) No changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to
result from the proposed development of the site.
g) See IV.f. above.
h) See IV.f. above.
i) See IV.b. above. No alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters downstream of the site
are expected to result from th, proposed development of the site.
j) According to the Sweetwater Authority, in written correspondence dated November 27,
2002, there is an eight-inch water main located along the east side of Broadway. The
construction of the mixed-use project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in
the consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
V, AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 0
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 0
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
<1) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 0
3,y-
4
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
o
o
o
[81
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
b) The development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase
in air pollutants.
c) The proposed mixed-use project is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate.
d) The City Zoning Ordinance allows for residential and commercial land uses. Neither
development nor operation of the proposed mixed-use commerciallresidential project is
anticipated to create any objectionable odors.
e) See Section V. a. The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic
generation; the proposal would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air
emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions
would be associated with the proposed project.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentially
VI. TRANSPORT A TIONfCIRCULA nON. Would Potentially Significant Less than
Signfficant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 [81 0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 [81
sharp curves or dangerouS" intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 [81 0
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 [81
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 [81 0
bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 [81
alternative transportation (e,g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts') 0 0 0 [81
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 [81
Management Program? (An equivalent uf 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak -hour vehicle trips,)
Comments:
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
5 ~'1
b) See VI.a. According to the Traffic Engineering Department, no traffic safety hazards are
anticipated to result from the proposed mixed-use project plus the existing conditions.
c) According to the Fire Department and Police Department, the proposed site plan provides
for adequate emergency access from Broadway Avenue. In accordance with preliminary
requirements of the Fire Department, the project design has been modified to indicate
turning radius for both interior corners off of Broadway and installation of two fire hydrants;
one public and one private.
d) See VI.a. The City Parking Ordinance requires 139 spaces for the proposed project. The
proposal would result in a net gain of 138 parking spaces; 80 garages and 58 on-site parking
spaces. Through a precise plan review it allows minor flexibility in the project design such
as parking. Exclusively the residential and commercial tenants, customers and visitors,
would use all on-site parking spaces.
e) See VIa. The proposal would not result III any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists.
f) See VIa. The proposed project is on a transit corridor. The existing public transit MTDB
bus route 932, runs north and south along Broadway. It serves the existing businesses,
schools and residential areas in the surrounding neighborhoods. No conflicts with adopted
policies supporting alternative transportation would result.
g) No rail, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site;
therefore, the proposal would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts.
h) The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic; therefore, the project is not
considered a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e. g., heritage
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
,nk Inrest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland hahitat (e.g., marsh. riparian and
""IDal pool)?
e) Wilrllife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
effOftS?
6
Potentially
PotentiaUy Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
yo
Comments:
a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for
listing are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
b) No locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed
development area.
c) No locally designated natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area.
d) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development
area.
e) No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area.
f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created as a result of the
proposed project as the development site is a designated development area in the Draft City
of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan dated October 2002.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 0
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 0
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 0
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments:
a) The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential development would be designed to meet or
exceed all applicable energy efficiency regulations per State RegulatioHs, Uniform Building
Code Title 24. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in
the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
c) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the
State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for
mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
IX.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
v/
7
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
a) There are no proposed features of the proposed project that would represent an atypical risk
of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. If applicable, a business plan that
identifies the type and location of any hazardous materials utilized and/or stored on-site by
any of the commercial tenants would be required to be filed with the City Fire Department
and County for San Diego Department of Environmental Health/Hazardous Materials
Management Division prior to issuance of building permits.
b) The proposed mixed commercial/residential project on the project site would not result in
interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, according to
the Fire Department and Police Department. The proponent provided the proposed
circulation plan and project design that would eliminate any stacking or circulation conflict.
According to the Fire Department, the proponent is required to have access roads meet
Chula Vista Fire Department turning radius measurements and provide access ways within
the project site.
c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the mixed-use
commercial/residential development on the project site.
d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing dense
flammable vegetation and furthermore, buildings consisting of steel and concrete building
materials and decorative landscaping surround the proposed project site. The project
proposal contains formal landscape treatments along the perimeter of the project site,
including palm trees along the Broadway frontage, and interior on-site areas that does not
contain flammable vegetation.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentially
x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in' Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0
Comments:
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. L/-"2-
8
Mitigation:
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaUy
Significant
Unless
J\-titigated
""'...,
Significant
Impact
N,
Impact
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
0 0 III 0
0 0 0 t!O
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, through the proposed project design and installation of
two fire hydrants, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed mixed-use commercial!residential development. The proposed
project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire
protection services.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed mixed-use
commercial!residential project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
new or altered police protection services.
c) The proposed project is a mixed-use commercial!residential development and, therefore,
would not induce significant population growth nor result in any significant adverse impacts
to public schools or need for additional public schools. The applicant would be required to
pay residential and commercial buiJding permit school fees; however, an alternative
financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD, is allowed by the
Chula Vista Elementary School District.
d) The proposed project would be maintained entirely by the property owner.
e) As a private development, the proposed development would not have a significant effect
upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
Potentially
Potentiall)' Significant Less than
Significant Unless SigniilCanl No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 t!O 0
9 '-f 3>
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless SignifIcant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 Ii!j 0
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of
the cases. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The closest fire station is approximately 0.75 mile from the site with an
estimated response time of 3-4 minutes. The Fire/EMS threshold would continue to be met as
reported by the Fire Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are
anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant ""'th>D
Significant Unless Signifkant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 Ii!j 0
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less.
Comments: The Police threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Police
Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless SigniflC.aDt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 Ii!j 0
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D"
can occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the standard
above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: The proposed project would not increase the land use intensity significantly, as it
is an urban infill project on the 2.53-acre parcel, thus technically generating minimal traffic.
According to the Engineering Department, all roadways within the project area are calculated
to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the project traffic. According to the Traffic
Impact Analysis prepared for the proposal, based on the established significance criteria no
signilicant project impacts are calculated at any of the key intersections or adjacent street
10 lfY
segments. Thus, all roadways within the project area are calculated to operate at LOS C or
better with the addition of project traffic.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant UnIou Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) ParksIRecreation 0 0 0 t;I
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and
community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east ofInterstate 805.
Comments: Because the project site is located to the west of Interstate 805, the threshold
standard is not applicable. However, as a mixed-use development with a residential
component the proposal is subject to payment of park fees to be utilized to provide for future
park and recreation facilities consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Drainage
o
o
~
o
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the Engineering
Department, a fonnal drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of
final grading and improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities will be
installed at the time of site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and
discharged into the existing City storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's
storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. According
to the Engineering Department, the proposed project would comply with the drainage
threshold standard.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
t) Sewer 0 0 ~ 0
1l1e Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
'/:")
II
Comments: No new sewer service would be required to serve the proposed project.
Proper engineering design of required sewer improvements to serve the project would
ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless S"tgniftcant No
Impact Mitigated bopact Impact
g) Water 0 0 1<1 0
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The
project site is an infill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area
of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater
Authority, dated November 27, 2002, the project may be serviced off the existing 8-inch main
on the east side of Broadway. There are three existing water services to these parcels. Project
impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than
significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant ""'''''',
Significant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 1<1 0
b) Communications systems? 0 0 1<1 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 1<1 0
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 1<1 0
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 1<1 0
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 1<1 0
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and
service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to
SUC:1 utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adequately service the proposed
mixed-use development would be implemented by the City, subject to the approval of the
appropriate utilities and service providers. No significant impact to utilities and service
systems would result from the proposed project. ~
12
b) See XIII.a.
c) See XIII.a. The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority.
Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced
from existing potable water mains.
d) See XIII.a. According to the Engineering Department, there is an 8-inch sewer line on the
west side of the proposed project flowing westerly into an 8-inch sewer line on Riverlawn
A venue and into another 8-inch line on Kearney and then flows northerly into an 8-inch
sewer line on Madison Avenue. City Engineering staff has determined that existing sewer
mains are adequate to serve the proposed project.
e) See XIII.a. There is an existing off-site drainage facility located east of the site along
Broadway. The conceptual design indicated in the project design is anticipated to be
sufficient according to the Engineering Department. The adequacy and final detail of the
existing and modification to storm drainage facilities to serve the project will be determined
at the time of detailed engineering design; any improvements to the storm drainage system
that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the applicant.
t) See XIII.a.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant '-""thaD
Significant Unless Significant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 I1J
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 I1J 0
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 I1J
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 I1J 0
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spiIllighe 0 0 I1J 0
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, this portion of Broadway is not designated a
scenic roadway. The project proposes access via two unsignalized driveways along
Broadway. Landscape treatments along Broadway are proposed in accordance with the City
Ln
13
of Chula Vista Municipal Code, (Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) landscape and site
architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements
would ensure that aesthetic impacts to the Broadway corridor are not significant.
c) The vacant project site is within an urbanized area and contains overgrown non-native
vegetation. The development of a mixed-use development on the project site would not have
a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Proposed improvements along the site's Broadway
street frontage, including landscaping, decorative hardscape, and maintenance of existing
walls, and new retaining walls would have a positive aesthetic effect.
d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be
designed and installed, with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not
spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and
surrounding commercial, or motel areas.
e) See XIV.d.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction or 0 0 0 0
a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects 0 0 0 0
to a prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c) Have the potential to caus~ a physical change, 0 0 0 0
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 0 0 0
the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 ~
EIR as an area of high potential for
archaeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistliric ur historic archaeological sites are known or are expected to be present within
the impact ,.rea of the proposal. See XV.e. below.
b) No buildings ,y structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no
prehistoric or historic objects are known or are expected to be present within the impact
area. See XV.e. below.
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal.
'fr.
14
e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultural resources in the City's
General Plan ErR. The proposed grading quantities are 3,500 cubic yards cut and 1,000
cubic yards fill, resulting in 2,500 net cubic yards of export. Based on the level of previous
disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be
necessary to construct the proposed mixed-use development, the potential for impacts to
archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
M.itigated
""'th~
SignUJCant
Impact
N.
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
o
o
o
181
The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resources in the City's
General Plan EIR. Based upon the low sensitivity of the site and the relatively minor amount of
proposed excavation, impacts to paleontological resources are not anticipated to be significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other reGreational facilities?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Signif1CaDt N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 181 0
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or
programs?
Comments:
a) Because the proposed mixed-use development is a small conunercial retaillre,idential land
use proposing 49 residential units, it would not induce significant population growth and
thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities.
b) The proposed mixed-use project would not create a significant impact to existing
recreational opportunities in the area.
c) According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not
planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
15
'('1
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
Ii!
Comments: No significant effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated to
result from the proposed project. The 2.53-acre site is currently unoccupied and is zoned for
commercial retail and residential land uses.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration 15-03-016.
17
')1
~
xvrn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative DeclarationJor
mandatory findings oj sigllificance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or resmct the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
SignirtcaDt
Impact
PotentiaUy
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
l.e<<tha.
Signif"lCilDt
1m.."
o
o
o
o
Comments: The site is currently vacant, is within a commercial area, and is within the designated
development area the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea
Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-teffil, to the disadvantage of long-teffil,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
o
Comments: The project would not affect long-teffil environmental goals of the City because the
project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft City of Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The project site is slated for infill
development. No significant short-term impacts would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively consideratJL"
means that the incremental effects of a pre'J eel
are considerable when viewed in connectIOn
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects 01
probable future projects.)
o
o
o
o
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis,
the project area is virtually built out and any future inl111 projects were not known at the time of the
traffic study. Since cumulative projects were not included, the existing + project + cumulative projects
scenario was not analyzed.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. '-)0
16
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:~
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-03-06; Request to amend the Otay
Ranch Village II Sectional Planning Area (SP A) Plan, Site Utilization Plan
and adopt an Ordinance to modify the Otay Ranch Village II SPA Planned
Community District Regulations. Applicant - Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC.
Public Hearing: PCS-03-02; Request to approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map for Village II of Otay Ranch, Chula Vista Tract
01-11 A. Applicant - Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC.
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan to add
language to the PC District Regulations and amend the Site Utilization Plan by transferring one
dwelling unit from Neighborhood R-I to Neighborhood R-2. In addition, the application proposes a
Revised Tentative Map to subdivide Neighborhood R-23 and utilize unused Village 11 SPA
dwel1ing units in Neighborhoods R-I and R-4.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental QuaJity Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately
covered in previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area
Plan Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 01-02). Thus, no further environmental review or
documentation is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution No. PCM-03-06 recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the
Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan adding language to the PC District Regulations and
amending the Site Utilization Plan by transferring one dwelling unit trom Neighborhood R-I
to Neighborhood R-2.
. Resolution No. PCS-03-02 recommending that the City Council approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map for Vi1lage II to subdivide Neighborhood R-23 and utilize
unused Village II SPA dwelling units in Neighborhood R-l and R-4 (Chula Vista TractOI-
11A).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
On October 23,2001, the City Council amended the Otay Ranch GDP to authorize 2,390 dwelling
units for V i1lage II. At the same time, the City Council also adopted a SPA Plan for V illage II in
6-- I
Page 2, Item: ~_
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
Otay Ranch that permitted development of 2,304 of the authorized 2,390 GDP dwelling units. The
City Council also approved a Tentative Map that utilized only 2,282 dwelling units of the 2,304
authorized by the SPA Plan.
The current application for the amendment to the SPA Plan and for a Revised Tentative Map
essentially utilizes a portion of the unused SPA dwelling units, transfers one dwelling unit from
Neighborhood R-2 to R-l, subdivides Neighborhood R-23 into a small-lot single-family product
and completes a minor "clean-up" for the plan document.
1. Site Characteristics
The project area is located at the northern portion of Village 11 adjacent to Olympic Parkway (see
Attachment #1). The project is part of Phase One of Village 11, which has recently undergone
grading operations. The San Diego Aqueduct and the San Diego Gas and Electric easement (a
prominent 240-feet wide corridor through the Village 11 project area), crosses the middle of the
project site from the northwest to the southeast.
The planned community of East Lake Greens and the EastLake Land Swap area are located directly
north of the Project adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The Eastern Urban Center and Freeway
Commercial sites (Planning Area 12) are located on the western boundary of the Project, separated
from Village 11 by EastLake Parkway. To the south and east ofthe Project is the balance of Village
11.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The General Plan designates residential land uses in Village II as Low-Medium Village (LMV) at 3-
6 dwelling units per acre, and Medium at 6-11 dwelling units per acre. In addition, there is a Village
Core (VC) land use, as well as land uses for parks and recreation, an e1ementary school, and a middle
school all consistent with the land use designations for the Otay Ranch GDP.
Zoninf<
The land development regulations for Village 11 are contained in the Village 11 SPA, Planned
Community (PC) District Regulations.
Current Land Use
The project site has been graded and is currently under development. The project area involves a
portion of Phase One of Village lIon the northern boundary ofthe Village. Neighborhoods R-I, R-
re-.?
Page 3, Item: 6
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
2, R-4 and R-23 are located immediately adjacent to Olympic Parkway in Phase One.
3. Proposed Plan
The applicant proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan and revise the original
Tentative Map for Village 11 as a result of detailed studies prepared in implementing Phase One of
the project. Staff believes that the SPA amendment and Revised Tentative Map are essentially a
"fine-tuning" ofthe SPA document and the original Tentative Map. A summary ofthe project is as
follows:
SPA Amendment
The amendment to the Village 11 SPA Plan is proposed to enhance the pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood design in the village. The amendment adds footnotes to the Planned Community
(PC) District Regulations, Table 11.3.3-2, "Residential Property Development Standards", (see
Attachment #2) which may allow reduced minimum lot widths and reduced front yard setbacks for a
"z-Iot" and "zero lot-line" single-family design concept. The applicant proposes to implement the z-
lot configuration in Neighborhood R-I. The reduced lot widths and front yard setbacks provide
design flexibility and implement several Otay Ranch goals and principles.
The proposal to reduce lot widths and front yard setbacks for the z-lot and zero-lot line products will
enable garages to be located further back from the street, and provide more living space for porches,
courtyards and balconies at the front of the house. These design elements create more pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods for Otay Ranch and were contemplated in the Village Design Plan, but not
provided for in the PC District Regulations. Approval ofthe proposed amendment will be limited to
"z-Iot" subdivisions, and the actual design concept for the neighborhood must obtain review and
approval from the City's Zoning Administrator. Examples of this type of lot configuration are
illustrated in the adopted Village II Design Plan (see Attachment #3).
In order to allow the applicant to implement the design goals for these neighborhoods, regulations in
the fonn of footnotes need to be added to the Village II SPA Plan, PC District Regulations, Table
1l.3.3-2, "Residential Property Development Standards", to read as follows:
1. "Lot width may be reduced for z-lot concept."
2. "May be reduced for z-lot and zero lot-line concepts with approval by the Zoning
Administrator. "
Revised Tentative Mav
During plan review, staff and the applicant discussed refinements to the grading plans in Phase One
for Village 11 that would necessitate a Revised Tentative Map for the first development phase. The
original Tentative Map for the project did not utilize all of the units in several neighborhoods,
including Neighborhoods R-I, R-2 and R-4. The SPA table currently authorizes 164 dwelling units
for R-I and 46 dwelling units for R-2 and 55 dwelling units for R-4. On the original Tentative Map,
ik,- .:1
Page 4, Item: ~Q_
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
only 156 lots were subdivided in R-l leaving 8 lots available. During final engineering, an
opportunity to utilize the "z-Iot" concept (previously described) was proposed for this neighborhood,
which created the ability to utilize seven additional unused lots. Utilizing seven more Jots in this
neighborhood increases the subdivision from 156 to 163, which is one lot under the SPA Plan
authorization.
After the original approval, it was discovered that Neighborhood R-2 subdivided 47 lots on the
Tentative Map, one more lot than authorized by the SPA Plan (4610ts). The SPA Plan authorizes a
transfer of units between neighborhoods as long as the total GDP unit count for the village does not
increase. In order to correct the Tentative Map and SPA discrepancy for Neighborhood R-2, staff
proposes, and the applicant supports, to transfer one unit from R-l to R-2. In addition, the correction
will be made to the dwelling unit table on the "Village 11 Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit II.2.2-3" (see
Attachment #4). The correction will also reflect the change for R-2 dwelling units from 46 to 47.
The Revised Tentative Map (see Attachment #5) also proposes one additional lot in Neighborhood
R-4. The original Tentative Map approved 54 lots of the SPA Plan allowable 55 units. More precise
engineering for the Final Map found area for an additional lot.
The final element of the Revised Tentative Map subdivides Neighborhood R-23 into a smal1 lot
single- family product. The SPA Plan authorizes 119 SPA dwelling units for this neighborhood. The
original Tentative Map did not subdivide this neighborhood, as the neighborhood is designated as
multi-family with a density of eight dwel1ing units per acre. The applicant was not sure which type
of housing product to market, therefore, did not propose to subdivide the neighborhood at the
original approva1. The applicant now proposes to subdivide the neighborhood into 119 lots for a
small-lot detached lot design. The Otay Ranch GDP vil1age policies allows single-family homes in
multi-family designations.
In summary, the application provides for:
1) Adding footnotes to the Vil1age 11 SPA PC District Regulations to al10w reduced lot
widths and front yard setback for a "z-Iot" design;
2) Utilizing seven unused lots in Neighborhood R-] on the revised Tentative Map,
increasing from 156 to 163 units reflecting z-Iot configuration;
3) Transferring one unused lot from Neighborhood R-l to R-2;
4) Utilizing one unused lot in Neighborhood R-4;
5) Correct the Land Use Table in the Vil1age 11 Site Utilization Plan; and
6) Subdividing Neighborhood R-23 into 119 small-lot single-family residences.
{p - L/'
Page 5, Item: 6~
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
In addition, the following table illustrates the proposed changes to the Village II SPA Plan and
Revised Tentative Map.
Village 11 SPA TM
Oriainal lAmended Oriainal Revised
R-1 164 163 156 163
R-2 46 ~7 47 47
R-4 55 55 54 55
R-23 119 119 1 (MF) 119
4. Analysis
The proposal to amend the Otay Ranch ViJ1age II SPA Plan to add language (footnotes) to the PC
District Regulations to allow for the z-]ot configuration implements the design goals for pedestrian-
oriented single-family neighborhoods. The z-lot configuration would be implemented in
Neighborhood R-I, subject to review and approval by the City's Zoning Administrator. The lotting
configuration in R-I does not substantially change the configuration of the lots or the circulation
pattern.
The transfer of one dwelling unit from Neighborhood R-l to Neighborhood R-2 is consistent with
the Village II SPA Plan. The net increase in one unit for Neighborhood R-2 results in a
corresponding decrease in Neighborhood R-l. The modifications to these neighborhoods have not
affected the lotting configuration and maintain the current internal circulation patterns as weJ1.
The proposal to subdivide the multi-family designated Neighborhood R-23 into a smaJ1-lot single-
family neighborhood implements the SPA Plan design for this density. Small lot single-family
products are allowed in multi- family areas by the Otay Ranch GDP viJ1age policies. The subdivision
design of R-23 is also consistent with the landform grading and circulation policies of the City's
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
The plan to provide an addition a] lot in Neighborhood R-4 does not exceed the SPA dweJ1ing unit
total. The proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan along with a Revised
Tentative Map application for ViJ1age II remain consistent with prior approvals for the project
approved by City Council on October 23,2001.
As illustrated in the above table, the Revised Tentative Map is consistent with the proposed SPA
Plan amendments. Total dweJ1ing units in the SPA Plan will not change with the dweJ1ing unit
transfer. The GDP authorization remains 2,390 dwelling units, while the SPA Units allocated
remains 2,304 units.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the subject amendments and Revised Tentative Map application for Village II are
consistent with the approved Village II SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP policies and
&-' - ~<;-
Page 6, Item: ~_
Meeting Date: 05/14/03
recommends approval of the amendments and Revised Tentative Map, which is the of subject the
attached Council Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planned Conmmnity, District Regulations, Table II.3.3-2, Residential Property Development Standards
3. Z-Lot and Zero-Lot Line Subdivision Design
4. Village II Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit II.2.2-3
5. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. Ol-IIA)
6. Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-03-06)
7. Draft City Council Resolution (PCM-03-06)
8. Draft City Conncil Ordinance (PCM-03-06)
9 _ Planning Commission Resolution (PCS-03-02)
10. Draft City Council Resolution (PCS-03-02)
11. Disclosure Statement
0- (p
ATTACHMENT 1
,
\
~\~
J--I;--
\
-~~
,~-
J"-'
~/ \
\
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GD?, VILLAGE II Request Village 11 Tentative Map revision to increase R1, R4 and
ADDRESS. OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 units as shown on approved TM, R1 and R4
increases are- within number of units approved in the SPA. TM revision
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: includes grading improvements to lessen transport of cut and fill
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-06 materials between areas to the east and west of the SDG&ElSDCWA
easement.
J. Ihomelplannmglcherrylcllocatorslpcm0306 .cdr 08.13.02
cf'-;'
VILLAGE ELEVEN PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
ATTACHMENT 2
Residential Districts
B. General Standards
The general standards found in this section are based on the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan. Where the Specific Standards listed below are silent
on an issue, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to define a standard based on the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, the Chula Vista General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Manual and/or Landscape Manual, as may be appropriate.
C. Specific Standards
The following Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildings, other
than accessory buildings, pennitted in their respective residential land use district. The use
of the symbol "DR" indicates that the standard is established by the approval of a Design
Review Application or Tentative Tract Map. Dimensions and standards are minimums,
and minor variations may be pennitted subject to Design Review or tract map approval,
provided that the minimums specified herein are maintained as average. Lot widths and
depths are typical minimums, but may vary slightly with irregularly-shaped lots and site-
specific conditions. Refer to Section 11.3.10 Administration, for further infonnation
regarding processing requirements.
Table II.3.3-2
Residential Property Development Standards
LAND USE ZONING SF 3 SF 4 RMl RM2 NOTES
DISTRICT
Lot Criteria:
Average lot area (sq. ft.) 5,000 4,000' DR DR j"Average lot area" is the sum of the
area of all lots within a neighborhood
divided by the total number oflots in
the neighborhood.
2 Average lot area may be reduced for
attached units with design review
approval.
Minimum lot area (sq.ft.) 4,000 3,000' DR DR 'Minimum lot area may be reduced for
attached units with design review
approval.
Minimum lot depth (feet) 90 60 DR DR
Maximum floor area to lot .65 .65 DR DR See "Floor Area Ratio" section,
area ratio (FAR)
Minimum lot width (feet):
Measured at setback line 45 40' DR DR Lot width may be reduced if lots are
served by an alley. Lot width may be
reduced for z-lot concept.
Flag lot street fi-ontage 20 20 DR DR
Knuckle or cui-dc-sac 20 20 DR DR
street fi-ontage
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
~3-4
~'--Z
Februwy XX, 20IJ3
VILLAGE ELEVEN PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Residential Districts
LAND USE ZONING SF 3 SF 4 RMI RM2 NOTES
DISTRICT
Minimum front vard setback (feet from back of sidewalk)
To direct entry garage 19.5' 19.5' DR DR :, A maximum of 33% of garages ~ay
be set back at 19.5 feet within a
neighborhood. A minimum of33% of
garages on lots at least 50 feet wide
and 100 feet deep shall be set back a
minimum of 30 feet and incorporate
Hollywood style driveways. Sectional
roll-up doors required when setback is
less than 22 feet.
To side entry ("swing- 10 10 DR DR ('12-foot wide driveway is encouraged;
in") garage6 16-foot wide maximum driveway
allowed.
To main residence 15 15" DR7b DRib "laMay be reduced for z-Iot and zero lot
line concepts with approval by the
zoning administrator.
7bMay be reduced to 10 feet if garage
is accessed from alley.
See Village Design Plan for street
fayade design standards.
To pedestrian-oriented 8' 8' 8'/DR DR ~Dimension applies to detached or
Seating Areas and Entry 8 attached single family dwellings;
Features Design Review (DR) applies to multi-
family land uses.
'May be reduced to 6 feet for
courtyards,
A Minimum of 66% of neighborhood
residential units sha1l provide a
pedestrian-oriented seating area
(porch, etc.) and 33% shall provide a
pedestrian-oriented entry feature as
described in Section D,
Minimum side yard setback (feet) See "Architectural Projections"
Section J.
To adjacent residential 5' 5" DR DR May be reduced for zero lot line
lot concepts.
Distance between 10 10 DR DR May be reduced based on Design
detached units Review for zero-lot line, Z-lot, two-
pack or similar design concepts,
To porch/veranda/entry 7'u 7'" 7'" DR '"For detached and attached single
feature (comer lots only) family dwellings only.
Residential street ITom 13" 13 DR. DR "May be reduced to 10 feet on non-
building to back of featured side of promenade street.
adjacent sidewalk 12Minimnm 8 feet on featured side and
(comer lot) minimum 5 feet on non-featured side
of promenade street.
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
9. 3-5
o --
February X\", 2003
A1'TACHMENT 3
VILLAGE ELEVEN DESIGN PLAN Single Family Residential Design
,
1'\
0
~
,
,
5' l
~
\ '\
\ It)
.,;
~
.~....,t-o~' Sidewalk '"
. S I]~' )L.a~dS~ape ~ kway
-'t .... ...
-~ -
Residential Street
-.- ---.
..
o
~
I
Easement
5'
:
en
l.
,
-4-
<0
." '
.r1)~
-.~.
-.
Note: All dimensions are minimum,
Figure Il.4.4.2-26
40 x 85 Lot - Two Pack Z Lot Layout Configuration Concept
Brookfield Shea Olay, LLC.
4-50
October 23.2001
c:~ _/C"
o
~'"
~"
~~
lUll
~~
~c
~~~$~~g$~$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m8~~~
_ ~___ ____N__~
N
~nO~O~_~NOO~N~_~~_o~qo~qoqq~~
~riM~~~W~~~~~.~W~~oo~~ro~~w~~~~
..
v;
..,
...
"'
~
>
.
i:;j
.
~
.., ~
~ ;;'
N
~~~~N~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~q~q0q~~~ro~qq~q~~~~~~_~W~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ID~~~~~~ID~~~~~~~~~~ID~~_~~~~~~~~ID~~~__~~
~O~ ....... (")
w
'"
~
C
'j
o
c
c
r.
"w
g~
r
o
w
z
~
_ -'...J...J
.~~~~~~~~~OOOQQOOOa . . . _ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3m~~~~~~~~~2~o~~<<<400.:l>WW(l)
oowwoowwwoowwwwwwwww ~ <<88I.)u~~~~~00a~~~@~~ooood
"'''''''
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~2~~~~~o~o;o~o~~~~o~
~~oc~~~~ococ~~~~~ococ~~ococococococ&&~~~~~~~QQ~~~;
::> :;) :::J ::;J:;) :;)rn
.:I> II) en II) UJ (1)
OJ!! i"ii r.!
elf ~6 <t~e:S:~<i!-J
1-... "i ""' "" I- :> a. .'; - I- <(
O<ua..a.<'O OIt!;:>:I!JO
I- a. u..,"5"51- !Fi.E..." I- ~o
mG>'--"'~ mai-...<Cm
~~ ~U'-~l5~g~~)-
:I; o.1J ~o :Q :3 ~
w"
8~
-0
4~4!..\o'& / i
>. ~
YJ
~>//
~ =
N.!! :3
r-.i ~ g
:= g ~
- ,- '"
:0 ~ ;:....
~~ "
"''''
ATTACHMENT 4
N
U
.J
.J
:;:
1;
.
.
~
'"
~
~
.
.
~
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-03-06
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
AND AMENDING THE SITE UTILIZATION PLAN BY TRANSFERRING
ONE DWELLING UNIT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD R-l TO
NEIGHBORHOOD R-2.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on Chula Vista Tract 0 I-
II A, and is commonly known as Village 11 ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Plan was filed with
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 29, 2002 by Brookfield Shea
Otay LLC, ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Plan to add
language (footnotes) to the PC District Regulations to allow reduced setbacks for "z-lot" single-
family residential lot configurations, and amend the Village 11 SPA Plan, Site Utilization Plan by
transferring one dwelling unit from Neighborhood R-l to Neighborhood R-2; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on October 23,2001 by
Resolution No. 2001-363, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said Village
11 SPA Plan relied in part on the original Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional
Planning Area Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report ("ElR 01-02"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has detennined that the
proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment!
Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02. Thus, no further environmental review or
documentation is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-03-06) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries ofthe Project
site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May
14,2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the approval of an anlendment to the
(; -/v(
Resolution No. PCM-03-06
Page 2
Otay Ranch Village II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-03-06) is consistent with the City
of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable
Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support
the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village 11 Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan amendment (PCM-03-06) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City
Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May, 2003 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
(/3
-j'
_~ E
/'( ~
/1
/"
\
0,
t.<,~
'"
~~
.
EXHIBIT A
V~l.
EASTLAKE
VISTAS
\
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GDp, VILLAGE II Request Vinage 11 Tentative Map revision to increase R1, R4 and
ADDRESS: OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 units as shown on approved TM, R1 and R4
increases are within number of units approved in the SPA. TM revision
SCALE: fILE NUMBER includes grading improvements to lessen transport of cut and fill
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-06 materials between areas to the east and west of the SDG&E!SDCWA
easement.
j:\home\planmng\cherrylcllocatorslpcm0306.cdr 08.13.02
e' . / c;/
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 11 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO AMEND
THE SITE UTILIZATION PLAN BY TRANSFERRING ONE DWELLING
UNIT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD R-l TO NEIGHBORHOOD R-2.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract Ol-IIA, and is commonly
known as Village II ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a du1y verified application to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Plan
was filed with the City of Chu1a Vista Planning and Building Department on July 29, 2002 by
Brookfield Shea Otay LLC, ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on October 23,2001
by Resolution No. 2001-363, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
Village 11 SPA Plan relied in part on the original Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II
Sectional Planning Area Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 01-02"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmenta1 Quality Act and has detennined that
the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP
Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area Plan EIR 01-02. Thus, no further
environmenta1 review or documentation is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One P1an amendment (PCM-03-06) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was he1d at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
on May 14, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the P1anning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of
the Planning Commission approved the project;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista on the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Amendment to amend the Village II SPA Plan, Site
Utilization P1an by transferring one dwelling unit from Neighborhood R-I to Neighborhood R-2.
?/0
Resolution No.
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as fo\1ows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and a\1 evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby amends the Village 11 SPA Plan, Site Utilization Plan by
transferring one dwe\1ing unit from Neighborhood R-1 to Neighborhood R-2 as set forth
on Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", attached hereto, finding it is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other
applicable plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation.
Ill. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Otay
Ranch GDP Amendment/Vi\1age 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02, would
have no new effects that were not examined in the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village
11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, ErR 01-02, [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)].
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no substantial changes in the Project
which would require revisions of said report; (2) no substantial changes have occurred
with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since certification
. of ErR 01-02; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available since the issuance and approval of EIR 01-02; and that, therefore, no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to
those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore,
the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project
covered by the EIR 01-02 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed project was adequately covered in
previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village 11 Sectional Planning Area
Plan, EIR 01-02. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary.
t;, --/~,
Resolution No.
Page 3
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL CONDITIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this
approval an applicable conditions, mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP AmendmentIVillage II Sectional Planning
Area Plan, EIR 01-02, and Village II SPA Plan docwnent.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council gave notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully
described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment!
Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02, adequately describes and analyzes
this project for the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)].
VIII. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN FINDINGS
The proposed Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch Village II Sectional Planning
Area Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE P-C
ZONE, ANY ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS.
The request to amend the Village II SPA Plan, Site Utilization Plan by
transferring one dwelling unit from Neighborhood R-I to Neighborhood R-2
reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and
public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED SETIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE
THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan amendment contains provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The
amendment does not modify any phased development of the project and must
comply with all development phase thresholds identified in the Otay Ranch
Village II SPA Plan.
fro --/ ;?
Resolution No.
Page 4
C. THE PROPOSED SETIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The 1and uses within Otay Ranch are designed to promote pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods. The amendment does not modify any surrounding land uses and
is consistent with the residential land use policies as required by the General Plan
and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. A comprehensive street network
serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The
proposed plan will be required to implement all mitigation measures specified in
the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area Plan, ErR
01-02. These mitigation measures will minimize or reduce any identified impacts
to land use, circulation and environmental quality.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
Ann Moore
City Attorney
~
r;.. - /'2<
EXHIBIT A
.
~
N
E
~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Q) APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GDp'VILLAGE II Request: Village 11 Tentative Map revision 10 increase R1, R4 and
ADORESS: OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 units as shown on approved TM. R1 and R4
increases are within number of units approved in the SPA TM revision
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: includes grading improvements to lessen transport of cut and fill
materials between areas to the east and west of the SDG&ElSDCWA
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-06 easement.
j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocalorslpcm0306.cdr 08.13.02
t: -/:7
"
"'"
::I"
~"
~~~~~~g~S$~m~$$~:~~~~E~~~~S~~
N
t;~
!~ ;~~:~~;~~~~~:ri:~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~a
..
o
..,
N
~~W~~~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~q~q~qq~~~~qq~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~_~~~~~~~~~:~~-~~~
'O~ ........ ~
w
!Ij
a
3
, ...J...J...J
~~~~~~~~~~OOooQaoaa . . . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~~~~220~<<<<<~~w~~
OO~~~~OOW(l)OOOOWWW(l)OO.:l>oo ~ ~88uu~~~~~ooG~~~~~~oo6do
"""
a
a
a
~~
g~
~
o
w
z
~
.
O_NM.~~~~~~O_NM~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Ii,
~~~~~~~~~____....__O__""NNNNNNO~O~O~O~~ry~O_~O~~~
~~~~~~~a~ococ<<ococ~oc~ococ~~ocaococ<<~~~~~u~~~~~~_-~ u~
i .:I> i i ~ i~~il~"
:t:oJl';:
8~
-,
~1:tr..\-6<a." 2
/
Y]
r:, -- ,;1 C:J
jj.
" .
~ ~ CL.iO ~ ~..J
gm~zig~
"'~_~ mO
:J E 2 i :;) I-
VI iti....'"
. . .
w~~
~ =
;1s: g
I=i:s ~
,::::'J:I ~
.c" "
~~ ~
"''''
~
0;
""
..
~
c
~
t
;;;
~
~
"
=
;;
EXHIBIT B
~
N
u
...
...
"'
<5
.
.
~
"
ii
=
~
.
E
'"
EXHIBIT C
VILLAGE ELEVEN PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Residential Districts
B. General Standards
The general standards found in this section are based on the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan. Where the Specific Standards listed below are silent
on an issue, the Zoning Administrator is authorized to define a standard based on the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, the Chula Vista General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Manual and/or Landscape Manual, as may be appropriate.
C. Specific Standards
The following Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildings, other
than accessory buildings, pennitted in their respective residential land use district. The use
of the symbol "DR" indicates that the standard is established by the approval of a Design
Review Application or Tentative Tract Map. Dimensions and standards are minimums,
and minor variations may be pennitted subject to Design Review or tract map approval,
provided that the minimums specified herein are maintained as average. Lot widths and
depths are typical minimums. but may vary slightly with irregularly-shaped lots and site-
specific conditions. Refer to Section 11.3.10 Administration, for further infonnation
regarding processing requirements.
Table II.3.3-2
Residential Property Development Standards
LAND USE ZONING SF 3 SF4 RMI RM2 NOTES
DISTRICT
Lot Criteria:
Average lot area (sq.ft.) 5,000 4,000~ DR DR "Average lot area" is the sum of the
area of all lots within a neighborhood
divided by the total number of lots in
the neighborhood.
. 2Average lot area may be reduced for
attached units with design review
approval.
Minimum lot area (sq.ft.) 4,000 3,000 DR DR . Minimum lot area may be reduced for
attached units with design review
approval.
Minimum lot depth (feet) 90 60 DR DR
Maximum floor area to lot .65 .65 DR DR See "Floor Area Ratio" section,
area ratio (FAR)
LAND USE ZONING SF 3 SF4 RMI RM2 NOTES
DISTRICT
Minimum lot width (feet):
Measured at setback line 45 40 DR DR Lot width may be reduced if lots are
served by an alley,
4J Lot width may be reduced for z-lot
concept.
Flag lot street frontage 20 20 DR DR
Knuckle or cul-de-sac 20 20 DR DR
street frontage
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
3-1
October 9. 20n I
Amended May 27, 2003
0'-.;1/
VILLAGE ELEVEN PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Reside/ltial Districts
LAND USE ZONING SF 3 SF4 RMl RM2 NOTES
DISTRICT Minimum front yard setback (feet from back of sidewalk)
To direct entry garage 19.5 19.5 DR DR A maximum of 33% of garages may be
set back at 19.5 feet within a
neighborhood, A minimum of 33% of
garages on lots at least 50 feet wide and
100 feet deep shall be set back a
minimum of 30 feet and incorporate
Hollywood style driveways. Sectional
roll-up doors required when setback is
less than 22 feet.
To side entry ("swing- 10 10 DR DR 12-[00t wide driveway is encouraged;
in") garage6 16- foot wide maximum driveway
allowed.
To main residence IS 15 DR'- DR May be reduced to 10 feet if garage is
accessed from alley,
7a May be reduced for z-Iot and zero lot
line concepts with approval by the
zoning administrator.
See Village Design Plan for street
fa,ade design standards.
To pedestrian-oriented 8 8 8/DR DR "Dimension applies to detached or
Seating Areas and Entry attached single family dwellings;
Features Design Review (DR) applies to multi-
family land uses.
'May be reduced to 6 feet for
courtyards.
A Minimum of 66lJ/o of neighborhood
residential units shall provide a
pedestrian-oriented seating area (porch,
etc.) and 33% shall provide a
pedestrian-oriented entry feature as
described in Section D.
Minimum side yard setback (feet) See "Architectural Projections" Section
J.
To adjacent residential 5 5' DR DR May be reduced for zero lot line
lot concepts,
Distance between 10 10 DR DR May be reduced based on Design
detached units Review for zero-lot line, Z-lot, two-
pack or similar design concepts.
To porch/veranda/entry 7'" 7 7 DR For detached and attached single
feature (corner lots only) family dwellings only.
Residential street from 13 13 DR- DR May be reduced to 10 feet on non-
building to back of featured side of promenade street.
adjacent sidewalk 12Minimum 8 feet on featured side and
(comer lot) minimum 5 feet on non-featured side of
promenade street.
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
3-2
October 9. 2001
Amellded May 27,2003
cP -- A .;(
ATTACHMENT 8
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE AMENDED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE PC DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR OT A Y
RANCH VILLAGE 11.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this ordinance is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 0 I-IIA, and is commonly known as
Village 11 ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Plan
Planned Community District Regulations was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on July 29, 2002 by Brookfield Shea Otay LLC, ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District
Regulations is intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch SP A One Plan is prepared in accordance with
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula Vista General
Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long tenn phased development of
the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the amended Otay Ranch Village
11 SPA Plan area to exist in harmony within the community ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
and Zoning District Map is established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC) Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch
Village 11 Site Utilization Plan of the amended Village 11 SPA Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
enhances the pedestrian-oriented neighborhood design in the village by adding footnotes to the
Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, Table 11.3.3-2, "Residential Property Development
Standards", to allow reduced minimum lot widths and reduced front yard setbacks for a "z-Iot" and
"zero lot-line" single-family design concept. The applicant proposes to apply for implementation of
the z-Iot configuration in Neighborhood R-l. The reduced lot widths and front yard setbacks provide
design flexibility and implement several Otay Ranch goals and principles; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on October 23,2001 by
Resolution No. 2001-363, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said Village
11 SPA Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch GDP AmendmentlVillage 11 Sectional
Planning Area Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 01-02"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has detennined that the
proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment!
/" ...,
li..... - ,:(.,;)
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan ErR 01-02. Thus, no further environmental review or
documentation is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-03-06) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
Project site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May
14,2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of
proj ect; and,
, the Planning Commission recommended approved the
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista on the Otay Ranch Village II SPA Amendment to add language (footnotes) to the PC District
Regulations to allow reduced setbacks for "z-Iot" single-family residential lot configurations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ofthe City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, detennine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the amended Village II SPA Plan held on May 14, 2003 and the minutes and
resolutions therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These
documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the
entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
claims.
II. ACTION
The City Conncil hereby approves an amendment to the Vil1age II SPA Planned Community
District Regulations adding footnotes to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations,
Table II.3.3-2, "Residential Property Development Standards", to allow reduced minimum
lot widths and reduced tront yard setbacks for a "z-Iot" and "zero lot-line" single-family
design concept, which implements several Otay Ranch goals and principles finding that they
are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, Otay Ranch Vil1age II SPA Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that
the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice
support their approval and implementation.
&.~-- ,;{ y
Ordinance No.
Page 3
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Otay Ranch
GDP AmendmentlVil1age II Sectional Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02, would have no new
effects that were not examined in the Otay Ranch GDP AmendmentlVil1age II Sectional
Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02, [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)].
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (I) there were no substantial changes in the Project from
EIR 01-02, which would require revisions of said report; (2) no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since
certification of EIR 01-02; (3) and no new infonnation of substantial importance to the
Project has become available since the issuance and approval of EIR 01-02; and that,
therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in
addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation.
Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the
project covered by EIR 01-02 [Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)].
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed project was adequately covered in
previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP AmendmentlVil1age II Sectional Planning Area Plan,
EIR 01-02. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL CONDITIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
AL TERNA TIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval
all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR 01-02.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by Jaw, that this Project was
ful1y described and analyzed and is within the scope of the EIR 01-02 adequately describes
and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline 15168(e)].
VIII. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN FINDINGS
The proposed Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch Village II Sectional Planning Area
Plan for the following reasons:
t, -- .::< ~
Ordinance No.
Page 4
A. THE PROPSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE P-C ZONE, ANY
ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL
PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS.
The request to amend the Otay Ranch Village 11 SPA Plan to add language
(footnotes) to the PC District Regulations to allow reduced setbacks for "z-Iot"
single-family residential lot configurations, reflects the land uses, circulation system,
open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED SETIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE
THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Otay Ranch Village II SPA Plan amendment contains provIsIOns and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The
amendment does not modify any phased development ofthe project and must comply
with all development phase thresholds identified in the Otay Ranch Village II SPA
Plan.
C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed to promote pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods. The amendment does not modify any surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the residential land use policies as required by the General Plan and
Otay Ranch General Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the
project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan
will be required to implement all mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch
GDP Amendment/Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, EIR 01-02. These
mitigation measures will minimize or reduce any identified impacts to land use,
circulation and environmental quality.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
d- --;{ &:-
EXHIBIT A
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY. LLC. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GDP, VILLAGE II Request: Village 11 Tentative Map revision to increase Ri, R4 and
ADDRESS: OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 unjts as shown on approved TM, R1 and R4
increases are within number of units approved in the SPA, TM revision
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER includes grading improvements to lessen transport of cut and fill
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-06 materials betw'een areas to the east and west of the SDG&ElSDCWA
easement.
j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcm0306.cdr 08 13.02
{~ A';/
ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-03-02
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REVISED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 TO
SUBDIVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD R-23 AND UTILIZE UNUSED VILLAGE 11
SPA DWELLING UNITS IN NEIGHBORHOOD R-l AND R-4 (CHULA
VISTA TRACT 01-11 A).
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on ChuJa Vista Tract
01-IIA, and is commonly known as ViJlage 11 ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to revise the Tentative Subdivision Map for Otay Ranch ViJlage
11 was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 29, 2002 by
Brookfield Shea Otay LLC, ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately
42.7 acres located on the south side of Olympic Parkway, east of the future extension of Hunte
Parkway, west offuture extension of Eastlake Parkway and north offuture University site in Phase
One of the Village II SPA area; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Tentative
Subdivision Map ("C.V.T. 01-11") previously approved by the City Council on October 23,2001 by
Resolution No. 2001-364, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said Village
II SPA Plan relied in part on the original Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional
Planning Area Plan, Environmental Impact ("EIR 01-02"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the Village II SPA Plan, (PCM-03-06),
and said amendment was adopted by the City Council on May 27,2003 by Resolution No.
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
Project and determined proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Otay
Ranch GDP Amendment/ViJlage 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, (EIR 01-02). Thus, no further
environmental review or documentation is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village II Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02) and notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of the Project site
at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May
14,2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
/ ~
V --;(;X
Resolution No. PCS-03-02
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, trom the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the approval ofOtay Ranch Village 11
Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02) is consistent with the City ofChula Vista General
Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving said Otay Ranch Village 11 Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City
Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VIST A, CALIFORNIA, this 14T11 day of May, 2003 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
i\i I'
c:) .---?y
.
EXHIBIT A
EASTlAKE
VISTAS
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GDP. VILLAGE II Request: Village 11 Tentative Map rev;sion to inaease R1, R4 and
ADDRESS: OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 units as shown on approved 1M, R1 and R4
increases are within number of units approved in the SPA TM revision
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: includes grading improvements 10 lessen transport of cui and fill
materials between areas to the east and west of the SDG&ElSOCWA
NORTH No Scale PCM..Q3-06 easement.
j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcm0306.cdr 08.13.02
03C
ATTACHMENT 10
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 TO SUBDIVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD R-23
AND UTILIZE UNUSED VILLAGE 11 SPA DWELLING UNITS IN
NEIGHBORHOOD R-l AND R-4 (CHULA VISTA TRACT Ol-l1A).
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 01-11 A, and is commonly
known as Village II ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the Otay Ranch Village 11 Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. Ol-IIA) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning and Building
Department on July 29,2002 by Brookfield Shea Otay LLC, ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately
42.7 acres located on the south side of Olympic Parkway, east of the future extension of Hunte
Parkway, west of future extension of Eastlake Parkway and north of future University site in
Phase One of the Village II SPA area; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Tentative
Subdivision Map ("C.V.T. 01-11") previously approved with Tentative Map conditions by the
City Council on October 23, 2001 by Resolution No. 2001-364, wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said Village II SPA Plan relied in part on the original Otay Ranch
GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area Plan, Environmental Impact ("EIR 01-
02"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project and detennined proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and has detennined that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously
adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area Plan EIR 01-02.
Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village II Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02) and notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
on May 14, 2003, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of
the Planning Commission approved the project;
and,
(-, 3/
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on said Otay Ranch Village II Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts said Otay Ranch Village II Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-03-02), which will remain subject to the Tentative Map
conditions approved by the City Council on October 23, 2001 pursuant to Resolution No.
2001-364, to subdivide Neighborhood R-23 and utilize unused Village II SPA dwelling
units in Neighborhoods R-I and R-4 finding it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and amended Otay Ranch
Village 11 SPA Plan (PCM-03-06) and all other applicable plans, and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support
their approval and implementation.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Otay
Ranch GDP Amendment/Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, ElR 01-02, would
have no new effects that were not examined in the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village
II Sectional Planning Area Plan, ElR 01-02, [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)].
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (I) there were no substantial changes in the Project
which would require revisions of said report; (2) no substantial changes have occurred
with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since certification
of ElR 01-02; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available since the issuance and approval of ErR 01-02; and that, therefore, no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to
those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore,
the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project
covered by ElR 01-02 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
~. - :?;?
Rcsolution No.
Page 3
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed project was adequate1y covered in
previously adopted Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village 11 Sectional Planning Area
Plan, ErR 01-02. Thus, no further environmenta1 review or documentation is necessary.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL CONDITIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council hereby re-adopts and incorporates herein as conditions for this approval
all applicable conditions, mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings
adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan,
ErR 01-02, and Village 11 SPA P1an document.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Counci1 gave notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully
described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/
Village 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan, ErR 01-02, adequately describes and analyzes
this project for the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)].
VIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Counci1 finds that the Otay Ranch Village 11 Revised Tentative Subdivision Map
(C.V.T. 01-IIA) herein for Applicant, is in conformance with all the various elements of
the City's Genera1 Plan, the Otay Ranch General Deve10pment Plan and the amended
Village II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, based on the following:
I. Land Use
The Project is in a planned community that provides single-family residential
uses, park1and uses, school uses, and open space. The Project is also consistent
with General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and amended Otay Ranch Village II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan policies related to grading and landforms.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public and private improvements required to serve
the subdivision are part of the project description or are conditioned consistent
with the Otay Ranch Genera1 Deve10pment P1an, and the amended Village II
SPA Plan. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in accordance with City
and Village 11 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan standards.
4:-
-? ...,
.;;J..5
Resolution No.
Page 4
3. Housing
An affordable housing agreement between the City and The Otay Ranch
Company (Master Developer) has been executed and is applicable to subject
Project providing for low and moderate-income households.
4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Parks, recreation and open space obligations are conditioned under previously
adopted and still applicable Tentative Map conditions. Construction of Park and
open space and programmable recreation facilities are the responsibility of the
Applicant.
5. Conservation
The preceding Otay Ranch GDP Amendment/Village II Sectional Planning Area
Plan, EIR 01-02, addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of
the General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with these
goals and policies. The Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan
requires conveyance of 1.188 acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve for every
one-acre of developed land prior to approval of any Final Map.
6. Seismic Safetv
The proposed subdivision is in confonnance with the goals and policies of the
Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults have been
identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay Ranch SPA One
Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report.
7. Public Safetv
All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the threshold
response times for fire and police services.
8. Public Facilities
The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and water
facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also contribute to the
Otay Water District's improvement requirements to provide tenninal water
storage for this Project as well as other major projects in the eastern territories.
9. Noise
The Project will include noise attenuation walls pursuant to an approved
Acoustical Noise Study for the project. In addition, all units are required to meet
G ,gf/
Resolution No.
Page 5
the standards of the Unifonn Building Code with regard to acceptable interior
noise levels.
10. Scenic Highway
The roadway design proyides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic Parkway
the only General Plan, GDP/SRP scenic highways adjacent to the Project.
11. Bicycle Routes
The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes as indicated III the
regional circulation system of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
12. Public Buildings
Public buildings are not proposed on the Project site as part of the community
purpose facility locations. The Project is subject to appropriate residential fees
prior to issuance of building pennits.
The conditions herein imposed on the grant of pennit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
Ann Moore
City Attorney
{
--:7.....-
- .:J.. oJ
EXHIBIT A
--;---'-'-'---7}
l I'
\/""~L
,-.....././-
//-
'''-...0<,1-,
,,\1-~
\'"
~
"-....
--...-j ~
/~-- - .------
/ --"l"" ///
I /-
- ~
r-_, :
.. ~
~~
I
i
p";-"--
/;:::/~/-
-,.-:;,---
~/~
\
-........
/-
\
\
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT MISCELLANEOUS
C9 APPLIcANT: BROOKFIELD SHEA OTAY, LLC.
PROJECT OTAY RANCH GDP. VILLAGE II Request: Village 11 Tentative Map revision to increase R1 R4 and
ADDRESS: OF OR VALLEY maintenance of R2 at 47 units 85 shown on approved TM. 'R1 and R4
increases are within number of units approved in the SPA TM revision
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: includes grading improvemen1s to lessen transport of cut and fill
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-06 materials between areas to the east and west of the SDG&ElSDCWA
easement.
J.lhomelplannmglcherrylc\locators\pcm03P6.cdr 08.13.02
t - ::;-1 V
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ATTACHMENT 11
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
N/A
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No -L
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
John Norman - Brookfield Homes
Paul Barnes - Shea Homes
Steve DavIe - Brookfield Homes
Sandra E. Moore - Brookfield Homes
John Vance - Shea Homes
E. Dale Gleed - Brookfield Homes
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -L.. If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
\/1t'Y3
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) .
i), /
!
,
\
,
~
ctor/applicant
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as; "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, /realemul organization, corporatIOn,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit. " /" -;""? ~
CI-' - J /'
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/2003
~
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Negative Declaration (IS-03-008); Rezone (PCZ-03-02) from
the Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan (C-T-P) zone to the Central
Commercial Precise Plan (C-C-P) zone; and Precise Plan (PCM-03-21) to
allow for a mixed-use project that includes: (I) 41 apartments affordable to
low income senior citizens with associated support services; (2) one
manager's apartment; (3) 2,219 square feet of retail space; and (4) reductions
in setbacks, parking and open space. The project site is located at 825
Broadway. The developer is the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee
(MAAC).
The project requires a Precise Plan in order to develop a functional mixed-use development on the 1-
acre property. The project will provide affordable housing for senior citizens and introduce new
commercial/retail uses intended to compliment the existing uses in the area. The Precise Plan wil1
allow flexibility ofthe development standards that would enahle the developer to develop the site as
indicated. The rezone from the C - T-P zone to the C-C -P zone is necessary because the latter zone
allows for mixed-use development.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-03-008 in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has detemlined that there is no substantial evidence, in light of
the whole record before the City ofChula Vista, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Negative Declaration,
IS-03-008. The Resource Conservation Commission recommended adoption of the Negative
Declaration on April 7,2003. Public comment was received on April 25, 2003. A summary of the
comments and staffs response is provided in Attachment 8.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council, and
Redevelopment Agency adoption of the Ordinance for a Rezone (PCZ-03-02). Furthennore, the
Planning Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency adoption ofthe attached Negative
Declaration and Precise Plan Ordinance (PCM-03-21), based on the findings and conditions
contained therein for the mixed-use project as described above.
DISCUSSION:
1. Background
The project site is located at 825 Broadway between Sierra Way and 'K' Street and is currently
vacant. The site is owned by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and is adjacent to the Chula
Vista Charter School's recreation field. The project is a combined Rezone and Precise Plan proposal
/
Pa/:e 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
for an urban in-fill mixed-use project that will be developed by the Metropolitan Area Advisory
Committee (MAAC). MAAC is an agency that specializes in housing development for moderate to
low-income families, and is promoting a "Generations Together" program with the project that
will bring the senior residents and the Charter School students together to participate in a variety
of recreational, cultural, social and educational activities in an effort to enhance a unique learning
and growing experience that will enrich their lives. The proposed project is one oftwo mixed-use
projects currently proposed along Broadway. The other mixed-use project is located at 760
Broadway and includes 40 lane homes and nine loft apartments above retail/commercial uses.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Zoning
C-T-P
C-T
C-T
C-T-P
C-T
Current Land Use
Vacant
Courtney Tires
Mortuary
Charter School
Residential
3. Proposal
The first part of this application involves a proposed rezone from the C- T-P zone to the C-C -P zone.
The C-C - P zone allows mixed-use deve10pment while the C - T -P zone does not. The second part of
the application is for a mixed-use project the will be developed on a I-acre site within the City's
Southwest Redevelopment Area. The project includes: (1) 41 affordable apartments for senior
citizens; (2) one manager's apartment; (3) 2,219 square feet of retail space; (4) 6,100 square feet of
community and common open space on-site; (5) a Social Services kiosk; and (6) 45 on-site parking
spaces. Additiona1 on-street parking spaces will be available on Broadway and Sierra Way to
provide parking for the patrons ofthe retail uses. Access to the off-street parking for the project will
be rrom Broadway by a driveway located at the north end of the project site.
The project has been designed as a three-story "u" shape building with retail/commercial at ground
level and residential on the second and third levels. The parking area is adjacent and north of the
building, and is screened from view a10ng Broadway by an architecturally designed wall that will
connect the social services kiosk at the northwest comer of the site to the main building.
The apartments will have a floor area of 534 square feet and will include one bedroom. The
manager's apartment will have a floor area of 814 square feet with two-bedrooms. The apartments
will be 10cated above the retail/conmlercial uses and will reach a height of approximately 35 feet.
The project wi]] provide 6,100 square feet of on-site open space. The open space includes a large
courtyard, a community room, lounges area, a library and a recreation room. The Charter School's
recreation field will provide additional off-site open space for use by the project residents. The
proposed social services kiosk will provide services and programs to assist the on-site residents.
:L
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
4. Development Standards Table
The proposed C-C-P zone would allow mixed-use projects when the residential developments meet
the R-3 zone development standards identified in the following table
Standards (C-C Zone) Minimum Proposed
Required
Front Yard Setback 25 feet Retail-Ant: 6 feet*
Ext. Side Yard Setback None None
Rear Yard Setback: None None
Height: 45 feet Retail-Apt: 35 feet
Parking (off-street)**: 74 spaces 45 On-site*
Standards (R-3 Zone) Minimum Proposed
Required
Front Yard Setback 15 feet Anartments: 6 feet*
Side Yard Setbacks 17 feet Anartments: 6 feet*
Rear Yard Setback 15 feet Apartments: 6 feet*
Height 28 feet Apartments: 35.5 feet*
Parking 63 spaces Apartments: 21.5 spaces*
*Requested flexibility from the CC and R-3 zones per Sections 19.56.040 and 19.56.041 ofthe CYMC.
** Requested flexibility from Section 19.58.205(D), independent residential/commercial parking, per
Sections 19.56.040 and 0410fthe CYMC.
ANALYSIS:
Rezone
The proposed rezone from the C-T-P zone to the C-C-P zone is requested by the developer because
the C-C- P zone allows mixed-use development while the C-T-P zone docs not. 80th zones are
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, which designates this area retail commercial.
The CC zone will contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by further assisting the
City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of Redevelopment Agency and Chapter 10, Section
5.9, of the General Plan.
Precise Plan
Section 19.56.041(8) states that the property or area to which the P modifying district is applied, is
adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different uses, and the development of the Precise Plan
will allow the area designated to coexist between land uses which might otherwise prove
incompatible. The zones surrounding the site include Thoroughfare Commercial (C- T) to the north
and south, which allows a variety ofretail and commercial uses, and Thoroughfare Commercial,
Precise Plan (C- T-P) to the east, which is the Chula Yista Charter School. Single-family dwellings
are further to the east.
The site would be zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C -C -P) and is subject to
..:3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone because the project is a mixed-use
retail/commercial and residential development. The existing development standards limit the
developer's potential to maximize the use of the site with the project. As a result, the project has
been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with
building encroachments into the required setbacks, a reduction in the required common open space
square footage for some residential units and the reduction in number of on-site parking spaces.
These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with
a functional use to meet the policies of the General Plan.
The mixed-use project's site design allows the proposed uses to function cohesively with the
surrounding uses, while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial
development for the general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan can
allow the project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to develop the site with a
fcasible mixed-use project.
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM) and
with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan area and Chapter 10, Section
5.9, ofthe General Plan. This section states that medium to high density residential development is
potentially desirable along certain sections of Broadway. The General Plan states that mixed-use
development should consider access, appropriate setbacks and screening from any adjacent non-
compatible uses, and that implementation of this policy should consider a special zone or land use
overlay that would establish specific development criteria for project design. The project's intent is
to maximize the use of the site with a functional mixed-use project. This requires less than the
required setbacks, residential parking and open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Precise Plan will allow the project to deviate from the Zoning Ordinance deve10pment standards if
the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency find that the project warrant the
deviations in order to meet the objectives of the General Plan.
Building Setbacks:
Without the project will be subject to the proposed C -C zone 25- foot /Tont yard setback requirement.
The project proposes a building setback of 6 feet front from the public right-of-way along
Broadway. The project does not meet the building setback standards because the small size of the
site and the proposed site design, which is intended to characterize an urban mixed-use development.
However, the project's proposed front yard setback is similar to the setbacks of other
retail/commercial buildings along Broadway, and would be in keeping with the General Plan goals of
creating a more intensive urban environment along Broadway. The Precise Plan can allow for the
reduction in the setback standards.
Parking:
The site will contain residential and retail uses that have specific parking requirements as noted in
the Development Standards Table above. Based on the residential uses and retail/commercial
square footage, the CVMC requires 74 parking spaces for the project. Additionally, the code
requires that residential and retail parking need to be independent. However, the lot size and
project design limits the project's ability to satisfy the number of parking spaces and separate
'f
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
residential and retail parking requirements on-site.
The project proposes a total of 45 parking spaces on-site. Approximately 34 spaces will be for
residential use, and the remaining II spaces will be for supplemental parking for the project.
Additional on-street parking will be available along Broadway and Sierra Way. The curbside
parking is limited to 2-hour parking and can be used for loading, patrons and residents or guests.
The developer's request for a reduction in the parking standards from the required 1.5 to .5 per
residential unit and I space per 200 square feet ofretail space is necessitated by the lot size, the
project's design, other on-site requirements (trash enclosures, open space) and the mixed-use
nature of the project. Additionally, there is a bus line that services the site in IS-minute intervals.
Parking for the project is shown in the table below.
MAAC Seniors on Broadway Parkin!! Table
Parking Type Parking Project Proposed Additional on-
Standard Reauirement street parking
Retail/Commercial 1:200 II 11 Shared
Residential I: 1.5 63 34 (1:.5) Shared
*Based on the 288 linear foot distance of the property along Broadway and typical standard curbside parking spaces.
The strict application of the City's parking standards would make the proposed project not
feasible. The City has approved mixed-use projects including Main Plaza and Kingsford Manor.
Both projects required a reduction in parking standards, which were supported and approved.
Parking Standards for Other Jurisdictions:
Staff researched to two other jurisdictions, which have similar urban characteristics, on the
parking standards for senior housing development. The City of La Mesa evaluates parking for
senior projects on a case-by-case basis. Two examples include a senior project that was allowed a
.4 parking space per unit for a large-scale project (48 spaces/129 units), and a .5 space per unit
for a small-scale project (42 spaces/8l units). The City of El Cajon uses a .5 space per unit
standard for the aged and disabled. Additionally, staff from the Community Development and
Planning Departments conducted surveys of other jurisdictions and found that the jurisdictions
allow reductions in parking standards for mixed-use, affordable housing and senior housing
projects. If the .5 parking ratio is applied to the proposed project, then the required spaces would
be 34 spaces for 42 residential units.
The City's use of the Precise Plan for the proposed project would allow a reduction in the parking
requirement. Staff believes that this is warranted for several reasons including less cars,
availability of transit, and nearby services. The Planning Commission and Redevelopment
Agency, in their consideration of the Precise Plan, will decide on what the appropriate parking
should be.
5-
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/14/03
Common Open Space:
The project will provide approximately 6,100 square feet of common open space on-site for the
residents. The open space consists an open landscaped courtyard, library, community room and
lounges. Without the Precise Plan, the residential component of the mixed-use project is subject
to the R-3 zone development standards. In this case, the common open space requirement is 400
square feet per unit (400 s.f. x 42 units = 16,800 s.f.), therefore; the project does not meet the
common open space standard. However, the Precise Plan can allow for variations rrom the common
open space standard. Staff is recommending approval ofthe varia!lon in the open space standard for
the three related reasons: I) The restrictions on occupancy ofthis project to seniors; 2) the amenities
provided that are geared toward the intended residents; and 3) the availability of adjacent school
grounds during non-school hours. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and developer have a
written agreement stating that the residents can use the Charter School's activity field adjacent to the
project for outdoor activities.
CONCLUSION:
The mixed-use project is a unique urban-infill project that introduces new retail and affordable
residential uses along Broadway. The project's design and intent to maximize the use ofthe site with
a functional development precludes the project from meeting the development standards in the C-C
zone, which include residential parking, common open space and building setbacks. However, the
deficiencies are not significant and staff is recommending approval of the deviations requested
through the Precise Plan. Staffbelieves that the project will enhance the area and potentially become
a model for architectural design for future development north of L Street along Broadway. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and
approval of the Rezone and Precise Plan to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Locator Map
2. Notice of Decision
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Rezone
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Precise Plan
5. Draft City Council Rezone Ordinance
6. Draft Redevelopment Agency Precise Plan Ordinance
7. Negative Declaration
8. Comment Letter on Negative Declaration and Staffs Response
J:\Planning\Mu:had\PCC RL"ports\PCM-03-21
~
. .
"
ATTACHMENT I
'Y\
~
NEFF
RENTAL
INC
" S"{
~ \..
,
~
\
\
.....-
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ APPLICANT: MAAC PROJECT MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT Request: Proposal for a Precise Plan for a mixed use
ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY project consisting of 2,220 square feet units for senior
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: 7 citizens.
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-21 Related Case(s): SUPS-03-05
j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcm0321.cdr 01.22.03
ATTACHMENT 2
~~f?-
:~::
~~
........_~
Design Review Committee
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
NOTICE OF DECISION
On PCM-03-21 (MAAC Project)
Notice is hereby given that the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered
PCM-03-15, a Precise Plan for a mixed-use project that includes 41 rental units for senior
citizens, a manager's unit and 2,219 square feet of retail/commercial space. The project site is
located at 825 Broadway in the C-T zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has prepared a Negative Declaration for the project.
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration on April 7, 2003. The Design Review Committee recommends approval of said
request to the Planning Commission and City Council based upon the following findings of facts
and evidence:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the intent and development regulations
of the C- T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone, the General Plan and the California
Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA).
The site will be rezoned to the Central Commercial, Precise Plan (C-C-P) zone, which allows
mixed-use development. The project includes 41 rental units for senior citizens, a manager's
unit and 2,219 square feet of retail/commercial space. The project's design and the
developer's intent to maximize the use of the I-acre lot by developing the lot with a functional
mixed-use project precludes the project from meeting the development standards of the C-C
zone with regarding to parking, building setbacks and open space. The developer has
designed the mixed-use project to be in substantial confonnance with the intent of the General
Plan, thereby satisfying Section 19.56.040 of the CVMC that a Precise Plan allows
diversification and flexibility from the applicable development regulations for a project.
2. The design features of the proposed renovations are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
The design features are consistent with, and are a cost effective method of satisfying, the City
of Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM) and Landscape Manual. Currently, there are no
design requirements for Broadway. However, the mixed-use project has been designed to
accomplish the intent of the CVDM, and will introduce building architectural elements and
landscaping that will enhance the site's visual presence along Broadway.
~
PASSED AND APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 21st day of April, 2003,
by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
John Schmitz, Zoning Administrator
Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary
q
2
ATTACHEMENT3
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ 03-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A REZONE (PCZ-03-02) OF A ONE
ACRE PARCEL FROM THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL,
PRECISE PLAN (C-T-P) TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL,
PRECISE PLAN (C-C-P) LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY.
WHEREAS. a duly verified application for a Rezone was filed on July 31, 2002, with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department by the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee
(MAAC) "Developer"; and
WHEREAS, said Developer requests approval of the Rezone a I-acre parcel from
Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan Modifier (C-T-P) to Central Commercial Precise Plan
Modifier (C-C-P); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has prepared a Negative Declaration, which has been
recommended for adoption by the Resource Conservation Commission on April 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Rezone
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 14,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented
public hearing with respect to the Rezone Ordinance, the Planning Commission voted
recommend approval of the Rezone (PCZ-03-02); and
at said
to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving Rezone
(PCZ-03-02) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City
Council and the Developer.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
10
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J\Planning\Michael\PCC Reports\PCZ-03-02
II
ATTACHEMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 03-21
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (IS-03-008) AND AN ORDINANCE FOR A
PRECISE PLAN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL MIXED-USE PROJECT
LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY.
WHEREAS. a duly verified application for a Precise Plan was filed January 10.2003.
with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by the Metropolitan Area Advisory
Committee (MAAC) "Developer"; and
WHEREAS. said Developer requests approval of the Precise Plan to allow for a mixed-
use project that includes 41 apartments affordable to low-income senior citizens. a manager's
unit. 2.219 square feet of retail/commercial space. open space and off-street parking; and
WHEREAS. the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has prepared a Negative Declaration, which has been
recommended for adoption by the Resource Conservation Commission on April 21. 2003; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Precise
Plan 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 14.
2003. at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS. after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the Precise Plan application. the Planning Commission voted
~ to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration (IS-03-008) and approval of the
Precise Plan (PCM-03-21); and
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached Negative
Declaration (IS-03-008) and the draft Ordinance for Precise Plan (PCM-03-2I) in accordance
with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency and the Developer.
1")..
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of May 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russell Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J\Planning\Michael\MAA.C\PCM.03-2!
15
ATTACHMENT 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE BY REZONING A I-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 825
BROADWAY FROM THE C-T-P (THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE TO THE C-C-P
(CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezone was filed on July 31,2002, with the City
of Chula Vista Planning Department by the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC)
("Developer"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer requests approval to rezone a I-acre parcel 10cated at 825
Broadway from the C-T-P (Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan) zone to the C-C-P (Central
Commercial, Precise Plan) zone in the Southwest Redeve10pment Project Area for the purpose of a
mixed-use development of the subject property and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of genera1 description herein; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared a Negative Declaration IS-03-
008 has determined that the rezone and proposed mixed-use project following the approval ofthe
rezone win not be a significant impact to the environment and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration IS-03-008; and
WHEREAS, on April 7,2003, the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend
that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration IS-03-02 and approve the rezoning in
accordance with Ordinance ; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2003, the Planning Commission voted
the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with Ordinance
to recommend that
; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said rezoning application
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
genera1 circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, name1y on May 27,
2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review
Coordinator and the City Council, adopted Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and approval of the
Rezone (PCZ-03-02); and
1'1
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was introduced for the first reading to the City Council on May
27,2003, and considered by the City Council for second reading on June 3, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: the City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Ordinance
No. ofthe City Council adopting Negative Declaration IS-03-02.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds that the rezoning provided for herein is
consistent with the CityofChula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience, general
welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P (Central Commercial, Precise Plan)
zone.
SECTION 3: The City ofChula Vista Zoning Map is hereby amended to reZone the subject
property, at 825 Broadway, as shown on Exhibit "A", from the C-T-P (Thoroughfare Commercial,
Precise Plan) zone to the C-C-P (Central Commercial, Precise Plan) zone in the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area.
SECTION 4: The Precise Plan is appropriate for the rezoned parcel because all the
circumstances set forth in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.56.041 exist with respect
hereto.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thc thirtieth day from its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
XXXXX
Director of Community Development
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:\Plannmg\Michael\MAAC\MAAC Rezone Ord 5 8.doc
I-S-
Ordmance No.
Page 3
Exhibit "A"
"1
~\\ ~
\ \ '. \..----\
'\:pIer:
\
~ ~\
~ W\ r3o'",CAi<!.O "
'UTO ~/,!f
'.... STO;> 7,hfi
,';. ..-\ "I,."~
. ,..........., ,,<.""-- I ",.,
L--Y.......----\ \.-;.. \ \~'; \..---'\ ~ '
?..........--\ .'r' \ IV."
''0 ,.'V\~ ~
~'"'~'il' ,~.
.' .'........--. ., ,~ \~.~ ',..----...----'~ .........--'. \ ~
,,,,,,,,----, .,~~,,~--------
\'~~'" '~\W~,,-\t.. \~ _______. 'C-------\
, I' ~ \ \, ~\ '
J .--C " \ , ....---I.
cY \~........-- \
\ \ . \ I \ ,
. . \ I --'. ,
\ \,...- , \
I~\!\~.
I '. " \ \ 'y' I~ ______
\ I I "" ~\' '-.______
---1 H0-i(\ \ ~\. \, ""', ~,
B~ y \~'
...\--\ \ \ \ N,,=F \\
~ ...--Y\ \...---\ ~\=;' R"NTAL \ I
--\......Ji}, \\ \ \ INS
Y~~I \. ~\...s-{ ~,
\ \\~~ "~\
, ,-----.~ ' \ '
~U.,.\ , '~
\ ,\
I
ROJECT
LOCATION
CHULA VISTA IcJ \ .. ~
=!...i::MENTARY ~ ____
.---' CHARTtR _____ \\
\ " SCHOO~ ~ \-----,
,------------ ~ \' \ \ \
~'.\~",..........-I
........ ,\........-- \ \.......--'\,,\
:::::----\\' ',' ~\ "" \,_------\ \tt\ \...----
\ \ '~\ \---<.....-\"'\~\ ~\.--
\ '\\....------. \ \ .....--i", I
\ \ \ I I \...---\ fc, ~ \...
.~""....------'~\ \...---'f . \
,<" '\ ~\....---"\\ "" ..
\",,"i;;'~~, ,...------.,<.\ I
\9.~~ ~\ ~ \..----\ \ ,.\ \
"As ~\...--\ \...------." '~\
;/"".,..\,~ .........--.~
..------ .:t.\ . '- I .. ,
, ----, '....------'. \~,
---- " . ....-..-,--\ '
',\ "', \
, '" . ,.--\ ,~
\ STO?" \ \....-J
,~ \
------I '
________ \\ ' I
\ "CONO \ \
\ !..U~
\--- ", \,
,
,
, ,
\ \ "
\. ....------Y
CHUlA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PR.OJECT METROPOUTAN AREA PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT, ADVISORY COMMITIEE (MAAC) REZONE
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 825 BROADWAY Request: Proposing a zone change for a mixed use
SCAlE: I AlE NUMS;:;:R: project.
NORTH No Scale PCZ-03-02
I \hnme\[112r]m'lakhAm'I,":'I'),...~tn~<:\n(,;7n.ln? r,.,r O,Q ?1 r]?
J:\Planning\MlchaeI\MAACIMAAC Rezone Ord 5-8_doc
lip
Ordinance No.
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA this _ day of ,2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Padilla
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
Steve Padilla
Mayor
ATTEST:
JWlannmg\Michael\MAAC\MAAC Rezone Ord 5-X.doc I )
ATTACHMENT 6
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHVLA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (IS-03-008) AND APPROVING PRECISE
PLAN lPCM-03-21) FOR A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 825
BROADWAY.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of I-acre commonly known as MAAC Seniors on Broadway,
and located at 825 Broadway C'Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on Jannary 10, 2003, a Precise Plan application were filed by the Metropolitan Area
Advisory Committee (MAAC) C'Developer") with the Planning and Building Department of the
City of Chula Vista requesting a Precise Plan to develop a mixed-use project that includes 41
residential apartments for senior citizens above 2,219 square feet of retail/commercial space, a
manager's unit and reductions in setbacks, parking and open space requirements C'Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
April 21, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing
staff presentation and public testimony, voted 3-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency
approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said Project, and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May
14,2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff
presentation and public testimony, voted to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency
approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and,
If
Ordinance
Page 2
WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
the public hearing on this project held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting
there from, are hereby incorporated into the record ofthis proceedings; and,
E. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and
notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
F. Discretionary Approval and Ordinance
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the
same; and,
WHEREAS, at the same Redevelopment Agency meeting at which this Ordinance was
introduced for first reading on May 27, 2003, the Redevelopment Agency of the City Of Chula
Vista approved Ordinance Number by which it approved a Precise Plan for 825
Broadway.
II NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City Chula Vista does hereby
find, detennine and ordain as follows:
A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the Negative Declaration (IS-03-008) has
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City Of
Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the Negative Declaration (IS-03-008).
B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review
and judgment, the Negative Declaration (IS-03-008) in the form presented has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and hereby adopts same.
C. PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS
1. 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.
/7
Ordinance
Page 3
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10
Section 5.9 of the General Plan, which encourages mixed-used development along
Broadway. The mixed-use project will introduce new retail and commercial uses and
affordable rental units for senior citizens who will have the opportunity to experience a
unique living environment. Additionally, the project will assist in implementing a
"Generations Together" program that brings together senior citizens and the youth who
attend the Chula Vista Charter School adjacent to the project site to participate in a
variety of character building progranls. The mixed-use project will benefit the
surrounding area economically, socially and aesthetically.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the "P" modifying district as set
forth in CVMC 19.56.041.
The proposal satisfies Section 19.56.041 (B) because the mixed-use project's site design
allows the proposed uses to function cohesively with the surrounding uses, while visually
and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial development for the
general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan can allow the
project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to develop the site with a
feasible mixed-use project.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the
Precise Plan.
Development of the lot using the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone would
limit the potential to maximize the use of the site with a mixed-use project. As a result,
the project has been designed with a high-density residential concept and zero lot line for
the retail uses with building encroachments into the required setbacks and the reduction
in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the
constraints to the site and the intent to maximize the use of the property to meet other
policies of the General Plan.
4. The approval of this plan will confonn to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the
City OfChula Vista.
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10
Section 5.9 of the General Plan relative to mixed-use development along Broadway. The
Precise Plan as described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan and the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
D. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redeve10pment Agency hereby grants the Precise Plan (PCM-03-21) subject to the
following conditions:
~
Ordinance
Page 4
Plmming and Building Department
1. The Developer shall incorporate the approved materials and colors for all buildings in
accordance with the materials and color board submitted on January 13, 2003, which
include an exterior stucco finish for the wall and buildings.
2. The Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division including
the following codes for 200 I :
. California Building Code
. California Plumbing Code
. California Mechanical Code
. California Electrical Code
. Energy Code
. Handicap Accessibility Requirements
3. The Developer shall submit a concept landscape plan for review and approval by the
City's Landscape Planner to include the following to satisfy the City requirements:
A. Show an enhanced accented landscape treatment for entrances.
B. Provide raised planters at the corner and the overall Broadway elevation.
C. Provide canopy trees at the sidewalk along Broadway.
D. Provide planter cutouts within the on-sire parking lot.
E. Show all downspouts connected to the sewer and not across driveways or
planter areas.
F. Provide an irrigation or water source design for all raised planters.
G. Enhance the paving in the courtyard.
H. Provide a Water Management Plan per requirements of the City Landscape
Manual during building permit submittal.
1. Encourage the use of street furniture as appropriate with the type of retail use.
4. The Developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a planned sign program from
the Director of Planning and Building prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permits.
5. The Developer shall provide drop-off zones and waltmg areas with appropriate
seating and overhead shelters. These should be located as close as possible near the
primary entrances.
6. The Developer shall provide a raised wood planter. The dimensions shall conform to
the ADA planter standards for individuals with reach limitations and mobility aids.
7. The Developer shall submit written restrictions for hours of operation for the tenants
of the retail/commercial uses to the Director of Planning for review and approval.
The hours of operation shall be such that there is no conflict with the residential units.
~/
Ordinance
Page 5
Engineering Department
8. The Developer shall ensure that the development of the project complies with all
applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) pelTI1it requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any
regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations
and requirements. The Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NO!) with the State
Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General PelTI1it
of Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall
implement a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction
and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall
identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures.
9. The Developer shall obtain a grading permit in accordance with the Subdivision
Manual and Grading Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building pelTI1its.
10. The Developer shall complete the applicable fOlTI1S and comply with the City of
Chula Vista's StOlTI1 Water Management Standards Requirements Manual.
I I. The Developer shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the
pollution of stOlTI1 water conveyance systems, both during and after construction.
PelTI1anent stOlTI1 water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and
shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements
that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans.
12. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal
PelTI1it, Order No. 2001-01. According to said PelTI1it, all projects falling under the
Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard
Urban Stonn Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
13. Water quality and watershed protection principals shall be incorporated into the
design of the project. Such measures shall minimize the discharge of pollutants into
the stonn drainage systems.
Fire Department
14. All buildings shall be fully fire sprinkled (NFPA13). The Developer shall install a
standpipe system, fire extinguishers, on site fire hydrant, Knox boxes, a Knox
override gate key switch and an optical gate opening system. The building shall have
roof access.
ol..cl.
Ordinance
Page 6
Sweetwater Authority
15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall obtain a letter from the
Chula Vita Fire Department stating fire flow requirements and submit the letter to the
Sweetwater Authority for review.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
16. The Developer shall pay the appropriate school fees prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Special Operations
17. The Developer shall develop and implement an integrated solid waste and recycling
plan acceptable to the Special Operations Manager. The plan shall be designed to
divert at least 50 percent of the waste stream generated by the project through
participation in the City's residential recycling, yard waste, bulky pick up and
household hazardous waste programs outlined in Sections 8.24 and 8.25 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Standard Conditions
18. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for
revocation or modification development permits.
19. All development permits 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.
20. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require approval
trom the Redevelopment Agency.
21. The Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Redevelopment Agency and Council members, officers, employees
and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval
of the Rezone and Precise Plan, (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) Developer's installation and operation of a 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.
Developer shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of
this Rezone and Precise Plan where indicated below. Developer compliance with this
d....3
Ordinance
Page 7
provlSlon is an express condition of the Precise Plan and this provIsIOn shall be
binding on any and all of Developer's/operator's successors and assigns.
22. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the final approved
plans which will include revised site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials
and color board, and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division, the conditions
contained herein, and the Chula Vista General Plan.
23. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of
the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
24. This Precise Plan shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to
the Pernlittee 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 the Permittee of a substantial revenue source
which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected
to economically recover.
25. The Developer shall be responsible for the building and landscaping maintenance in
accordance with the approved project and landscape plans unless the Director of
Planning and Building approves modifications.
E. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said
execution indicating that the Developer and property owner have each read, understood
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be
recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the
Developer and/or property owner, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk
and Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded
document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property
owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding apphcation for building
permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document
will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No.
Signature of Property Owner
of 825 Broadway
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
02.1.(-
Ordinance
Page 8
F. INV ALIDlTY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every teml, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions or conditions are
detennined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this ordinance and the Precise Plan shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of
no further force and effect ab initio.
III. APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby approve the Precise Plan including property
Development Standards for MAAC Seniors on Broadway, as represented in Exhibit "B".
III!. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
~
Ordinance
Page 9
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista, California, this 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Steve Padilla, Chair
ATTEST:
Laurie Madican, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
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 27th day of May 2003 and its
second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the
_ day of 2003.
Executed this _day of _ 2003.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
~
I-
,
1
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
i~
o
>
o
'~
I>
'-<
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Exhibit "A"
6'-0"
REAR YARD
, ~:~__ ~; -:::~+"" =~____ff
24'-" ,~ - --~ ----1-
m 200' ---, , . .
,.'~. 24'4 I' _._.._._._....l ~~
20'-0 r oItn~
" ~~~
~.~~ j~l "
';S i
- .; I
- Q I
-~ ~ 1
'0
~
b'~O'
FrwNT YARD
""mAG<<
I
I
, I
: I
,
I I
,
I I ' ,
: I I "'''f..
L__-LL..
1-- .,.: ";-
., _ I 1 ---
j'J _' t
" t<<~
; I
__ I
i \J
I : - ~ r-
: 11'''''- I
t I " ~.
.l. l >'1':"<
. . -- -".....
'. """
I .1 Ii .".. '
. ',....,', ',~
: ~ ,''''-'
JA f'" l '~: ~~""
I ",<~..' ,
II: c~>'Q>
: ,,<e,'
I ., ',' t;p",'-"
,,,,,<~ :-'
I I ...: :lcol,,~,
:: I:'" :,,<~,,:.'
: " "'-,', ',"",-
:11 c. '.'"
',.,'" "
.... .,"- ,
, r ",r- ',',,',
:1 --- ~ "'-,'.' '- '
. ' ,," .
'~ :" ' . " ," . '.
! I~~~ ~~_J _~L..~_~_~
: It
I mG
, ~i
~-~~ -------
: ~
I
: I
---I
i
,
,
~
"
.
," ."
"! (ATE
~
"
.
"
~ -0
" '"
~ 0
" ."
~ S!
m
a
.
~
"
.
"
J c.<"
~
~
t
&
~
~
.
.
~
"
"
"
~
.
"
~
tt! ~ ~
6. . . '"
\) ~ - -:I ""
~__. I _ ~ z
()
.
Ii
," .. ",_.:..~.~._-",' -;
',"... '
'," .. " ," '
:," ",,' ,<",'
" .' ","
~ ()
8"'~ 0
ocS:c:- c
{;\""o;~ ;:00
I)b~ ~
" '"
a
,
" " " .... :" "'.. ..','
">~..... : , .... ,''-, :.>
,', ..', '.. " " .... '- . ,," -,", ","
," " ,,' ' ' ..' ,
".." ,~,""'" '-"
,,,' ,:,- >.' ,~'<,:::'
,'..' ..
"",,",,',' '.
, .", ',' ~;" ' ',,:','
'.'.. ,,,,,,',
", .
"',
, ,----
=~ __J
---+--,---
.~
" r.~
SIERRA - ---.~-
-~~- ~S~
- -
m.b'!'
~
~
_.____' i, I
,I
-I~ Iii
~___~'1 <3-
-- _I~ I
--=--~1:
--~ ~~ \
L cV~=~: \
, i ~7c~t ~-~"t
, e:< J,~ Ii
. I u: -, -- I, i
, {,'J '__' :," I
I ' 'e< ,,' . II'
I!! 1--1, ....
'Ii! -{ Ii, ,~ I
I '" Ii' ::.:; "L I~ I
I i I
, II
'J:
-.\
I '
I
,
I
~
.--
~
"
\ J
-$.
+ i
+r
++ !
......,j--'lI
I
I
1"
I
I
I
I
~ I'
"
14
----{
I
I
,
I~
I"
YI""",,
~;:~ ,I
IJ -<: ~
=.=..= J~S
';W:;Ii"E --
L
--
1-
..--r------.........:
-~--_.-
Exhibit "B"
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. MAAC Seniors on Broadway
The following chapter details the specific development standards and regulations for
development and individual residential apartments and the commerciallretail
buildings within the MAAC Seniors on Broadway. This Precise Plan is intended to
work in conjunction with the development standards in the City of Chula Vista's
Zoning Ordinance (Title 19). Any information not shown within the Precise Plan
should be referenced in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.28
Apartment Residential (R-3) zone and Chapter 19.36 Central Commercial (C-C)
zone.
Residential
1. Allowed Uses
Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the R-3 zone as pennitted uses,
accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical
substations and gas regulators.
2. Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings
within the R-3 zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1
are allowed. Where in conflict with the R-3 zone development standards, the
standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular
item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the R-3 zone development standards
shal1 be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements
are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "B") shall supercede the R-3 zone
requirements.
Commercial/Retail
1. Allowed Uses
Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the C -C as pennitted uses,
accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical
substations, gas regulators and any automobile related uses.
2. Development Standards
The fol1owing development standards shall apply to all land and buildings
within the C-C zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1
~
are allowed. Where in conflict with the C-C zone development standards, the
standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular
item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the C -C zone development standards
shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements
are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "B") shall supercede the C -C zone
requirements.
TABLE 1
Precise Plan
Development Standard for Apartment/Retail
Uses
Suildin Setbacks
Front yard (minimum)
Side yard (minimum)
Rear yard (minimum)
Maximum hei ht
Parkin a artments
Parking (retail/commercial)
None required
None required
16 feet
45 feet
.5 er unit
1 space per
200 s.f.
6,100s.f.
6 feet
Note: Table 1 figures are based on the information from the approved Precise Plan
;t1
A TT ACHMENT"1
Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Seniors On Broadway
PROJECT LOCATION:
825-841 Broadway
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
572-270-0500
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC)
CASE NO.:
IS-03-008
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
April 2, 2003
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: April 7, 2003
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
May 9, 2003
A. Project Setting
The approximately 1.0-acre project site, located within the City of Chula Vista at 825 - 841
Broadway, is a vacant and undeveloped parcel, adjacent to an existing charter school (see
Exhibit A-Location Map). The Chula Vista Elementary School District currently owns both
the project site and the school parcel. The land uses that surround the project site consist of
the following:
North: Furniture Store
South: Mortuary
East: Charter School
West: Across Broadway, miscellaneous retail and auto-related businesses
B. Project Description
The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project requires a zone change ITom CTP
(Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Commercial), to allow mixed-use development
(see Exhibit B - site plan). The project consists of 41 one-bedroom units affordable to very-
low income seniors, and one two-bedroom manager's unit within a three-story building.
Proposed community area for the residents and retail portions of the project's ground floor
comprises 8,300 square feet of the building's total 40,000 square feet; 2,219 square feet of
commercial/retail space is proposed on the ground floor facing Broadway and 6,092 square
feet of ground floor community common area is proposed for the residents including
lounge/waiting area, community room with service kitchen, library, restrooms, manager's
office, and maintenance room. A 560 square foot kiBsk social services annex is proposed at
the northwest comer of the parking lot; its purpose is to accommodate MAAC social services
staff offering program assistance to &@niorG on-site residents. An underlying theme of the
proposed project is the linking of senior citizens and charter school students: "Generations
Together". The "Generations Together Community Center" will bring the senior residents
1 ~O
and the youth together in the community space located on the first floor for exchange of
intergenerational education and experience. Proposed on-site parking is 45 spaces. On-site
improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, retaining
walls and 6-foot wooden decorative fence. The proposal requires Design Review by the
Design Review Committee and approval of a Precise Plan, rezone and Special Use Permit by
the City Council.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is zoned CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial Zone) under the City's Municipal
Code and is designated "Commercial - Retail" under the City's adopted General Plan. The
proposed mixed-use commercial!residential project requires a zone change from CTP
(Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Commercial) to allow mixed-use development.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan CR (CommercialJRetail) land use
designation.
D. Public Comments
On February 4, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period closed on February 14, 2003.
Staffreceived one verbal contact and one written communication from the public. The issues
of concern dealt with traffic circulation issues associated with the adjacent charter school
along Sierra Way.
On April 2, 2003, the Notice of Availability of the Proposed Negative Declaration for the
project was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The
public comment period closed on May 2, 2003. On April 25, 2003, staffreceived one written
communication from a member of the public. The environmental issues of concern
contained in the letter addressed traffic circulation and parking.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
T ransportati onlCirculati on
The project site is currently accessible from Broadway, which operates at level of service
(LOS) A between K Street and Sierra Way. The two existing driveways on Broadway will
be relocat€Jd off of "K" ~t[€J€Jt closed. The existing driveway along the northern boundary of
the project site, which also provides access to the adjacent charter school, will provide access
to the project site. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, upon completion of the
proposed project this segment of Broadway will continue to operate at LOS A.
2 731
The MAAC social services and intergenerational activities between the seniors at the housing
project and the students of the charter school would occur mainly at the designated
community space located on the first floor of the senior project site and within the proposed
social services kiosk annex. Any MAAC off-site social services activities will be facilitated
by their own MAAC's IS-person van to shuttle seniors. These activities will not create any
significant traffic impacts to the surrounding area.
The proposal is projected to generate 900 340 average daily vehicle trips. The initial
projection of 600 average daily vehicle trips was done in error based upon the
commercial/retail space. Based upon the projected level of traffic generation and the leve] of
service of the segment of Broadway adjacent to the site, it was determined that the proposal
does not have the potential to result in any significant traffic impacts; therefore, the
preparation of a traffic study was not required.
Noise
The project site is a corner lot with frontages along Broadway and Sierra Way within a
developed urban area. Immediate surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail and
auto-related businesses to the west across Broadway, an established charter school to the east
continue (north/south). The closest single-family and multi-family residential properties are
to the south and east of the charter school site; the project site is not directly adjacent to
residential land uses. There is an existing charter elementary school ]ocated to the east of the
proposed project site. The closest existing school building is located 242 feet from the
property line. Between the project site and the nearest school building is school playground
area.
The proposed interior courtyard, approximately 3,000 square-feet, would provide an
important outdoor amenity for tenants and visitors alike as well as act as a noise buffer to
offset traffic noise from Broadway. The courtyard is partially screened on three sides by the
senior residential building with opening facing the school playground area.
The proposed residential units shall be constructed in accordance with the interior noise
insulation standards of Title 24, California Administrative Code. As a result, interior noise
would be reduced to an insignificant level.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
No Mitigation Measures are required.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Frank Rivera, Engineering Dept.
Jeff Moneda, Engineering Dept.
Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Dept.
3 j~
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Dept.
Majed AI-Ghafi:y, Engineering Dept.
Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department
Others:
Lowel1 Bil1ings, Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
Final Environmental Impact Report, City ofChula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No.
88-2, May 1989
Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October
2002
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update-Undeveloped Lot-825-841 Broadway,
Chula Vista, California, P&D Environmental, May 30, 2002.
Broadway Mixed-Use Project Traffic Noise Assessment for 760 Broadway prepared by
Dudek and Associates, Inc., dated February 24, 2003.
3. Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City
ofChula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environn1ental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
/;7~jJi?~~ .
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi 2>
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: 5 /J / ~.:.-
. "
4
.33
CHULA VISTA
HIGH
SCHOOL
SOlAR
TURBINES
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: MAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed commercial
ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY
-residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: units, a manager's unit and 9,01 Osq.ft of ground floor
NORTH No Scale IS-03-008 ~y retail and office space.
j :lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslis03008 .cdr 1 0.09.02
~/8rr A.
"~;..__ ...~,_._._~:_.3., . .._::..;:......._..::.'-"'-.';.....:...._.~::.:.-':.,J_~.;,~.......~.z-----"---'-~.'--"--'-'~-~---'--_._~--~----- .- ---
..,
~~:-
~. _-:::F'
=..:.~~ .~ -=",:;.::;-_~ ~=-=-__.:--:~~. ;.~~_ ~>::=. -::::;~:. ~_ '::..~:. 0.;;.-;-:'" ..::.;";. ~ .:......-:.';~7~':.';':"::.~~'":"r>:::.;.-;',,:-.::.:":: ';'~o':;;:"-='c:...':=-= :;-..;::=:;,-:. =.-==,:,,~"::==-;:"':;-:::;"~""::';:';~
z .:,.
QU-,
:~Z ~i
v;- .j
.~ =j.
N~o
WI/! >:1
:J< <~
"'Z _I
~lJ ...1
OiJ) '::1-
OW.i
~D ~!
w;rd
~'!o
.~i
1\ I"" i:\: ~ ~ '
~ Ii;; I;;;; lo!!!' I
~ I ~ g ~~ 1 It I
"' I I > 11-,! i~t o. I
z H" I'm',,"'< II
~ !11~~ t t il un II u-ft iJ
~"I ."! \' I_I Ii! I
06 j- -I J} ,I' II!! 00 :- JI
~~.! 5J~-i II ~hhnil. ~ i II JIll I
Q>ual.i.~!'!g!!I.I.pgl.!t!, ~!i~1111J j'iHB,.!
hi" '" ~ I}.. -I ,,! 0.1.! o~, ~ I "~I'I! !
~i. ~~;l&h! 8H!H ~ Jznh ~H !uJ .!! J !
II I!! I < ~~~!.'!: ~ 'I-.';?<:\
' . I I' . "'~, '"
, p. ,I i; o~ ..,;~ w I I
~ JII1111!\~! I oj;; ~if ~ L....rnnnn
L !ld,IIU! i ~ili~;!: ~, ~~~~
iq!!mIJI!Ii! '~~~!;I~ D
~~~!!!!!~II!M .<J~,;~~L...
'I
II
!I
r
,J
. ,
I:
[ :
I,
I
i
'---
, }
j/
~.
u_._ _"____
.A-V^" ""i[ V'M"M37"S - - - I
_ _ ___ _~_~___I,; u_____" ,~-j
~I :;1'
L .. ~ ,'.
. =:::::en ~- "'='=. -- l_........._ -- -- ~~~ Hi: I
HfilL J' i. ~0~\,~~:j:\~,~~ ~~;;~I..1ir'''' :
'. I \:'>"~",::'-. ," >:,~,:>'>\..'\: \--' ~ I
:;1 1 ". <'->>,'2"' ,-?:2 ;;s-?:2>" ,r >
; I ',"-" ,....,:::. '"" ,~'.' """\ ,I! \. ;1
I : ,~' ,.....~ >".> '~"~-:1'" '.r~! 51
I , : ",...~, <3; .< ,; I; ('
~ \ ! "t'r ~ '" ,~~>' .'. . I' ~!
!i ! l. Sh~] .'~.,,-ti..y tJ:/'= =
.~! + V .:~'~~~~~'.j.f II
,. __"'"".' ,:......",.:! l
: ~~~~\::~~~~, m '1
I:I.'~~! 'L.'G."""'0;;"0:~~'!~!II\
'\.~Lo;~ ' .- 1'-"":::"1 +-
! 1 ~ : ~ i " iI E ,'- i.. ~ :
I : ",0. " :< _ <> _ g:" . t I I '
~ . ~ I
I;:; 't7 _.~!_.~;~JLJ~- ~y 1\--1
liT' f-.X .' I ,I ) \.r. .h n-' i
':'I'~ ~t L..L<:r. ~ n. j I -
. =, 01 * ~1 ~I'!. 1 !~
~_ I ' \: : I \ ..
;: il ~ ;1 ' .,. ['
,.1 .1 ~ .. Z:l ~ ~ U ! .
L.....--- ~ \... - '- ~-,
~i I ~ ~ ~ . ~LL.:...-!
~I ;:;: ~ t 1". :
" g;.; .' ,"", .
~1 ~~i" ;1!~~'
~I l"'" t. . ~~ '.
,. Zl
~;I,
"
I
I
:
!
1
I
...J
1
- .- .---- -
1 '
tc_ -- -- -- 'j .- i
It=.:--=.;:~~_::.c~:~.
\
~
~~
h,'!!.
j.i!!!i
B ! I~
! . 1
h i~ t~
i' -'"
.'1 b ~~
.~ 1~ It.
. ~ ~
z
:s
0...
~
t:
V>
-'
<
""
:::J
f-
U
LW
t:
I
U
""
<
;.-::.~~
jo
'1"
!i
::
;i!-
ex)
I:::
~
~
~
!![i
! ~ ~
lill
! ,
. ,
"!i;
'I'
~ ~
.,'
.'
~ i
~: .
< ~I
~I !I'
g\ ,;.
~ ~i~
i
I.. ,
;5.;
,.\.
~~lo
~~~t
q:~
"I
II ~ ;,1
::,
~: 1
:1'
~! ~
... ; i ~
~I r
~ i
~ ~
;:1; "'I' 'I'
~ 'II; m!
g :.~ 1
~ ~:II'
~ !~ ~
., hl~
~ j i'l<! j' I!)i ~! II'
.:;" ~It ~~ 1 f ,: ~
:s ~ at ~ :; !11 ~ u i ~
,f,
.;;~
;;~t
"'I:!j
tOO a
11_.,
>iH I>
',~~J .
~ijh ~
, ,j-
~!H ~
""Ii
mh~
Case No. IS-03-008
ENVIRONl\1ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 22 West 35'" Street, Suite 200
National City, CA 91950
(619) 426-3595
4. Name of Proposal: Seniors on Broadway
825-841 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA
5. Date of Checklist: March 28, 2003
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentiall}'
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less tban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
o
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
o
o
o
o
Comments:
a) The project site is zoned CTP (Commercial Thoroughfare/Precise Plan) under the
City's Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial Retail" under the City's
adopted General Plan. The proposal requires a rezone to CCP (Central Commercial) to
accommodate the mixed-use commercial-residential development.
b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or
policies. Furthennore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectly affect the
Habitat Preserve area of the Draft City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Program Subarea Plall.
'5P
Page - 1
c) The project site is neither in agricultural production nor adjacent to property in
agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources.
d) The proposal would neither disrupt nor divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. The project site is presently vacant and undeveloped. The
established surrounding land uses consist of a furniture store, mortuary, school, auto-
related businesses and miscellaneous retail uses.
potcntiallJ
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Putentially Significant Less tban
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ~
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 ~ 0
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure) ?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 ~
housing?
Comments:
a) The proposed project consists of 41 senior housing units and one manager's unit. This
is not considered to be a significant increase to the regional or local population
proj ections.
b) See Section II, a. The proposal would not directly or indirectly induce significant
growth in the area.
c) The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. No housing displacement would
result rrom the proposal.
Potentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Putentially Signilkant Less than
Signifil;ant Unless Significant No
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated hnpacl Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ~
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 ~
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ~
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 .~
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 ~ 0
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 ~
3)
Page ~ 2
sands. or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
o
o
o
o
a) A Geotechnical Investigation and Geological/Seismic Hazards Study dated February 7,
2001, was prepared by Kleinifelder, Inc. for the charter school development and the
future development area (the current project site). The study did not identify any
potential seismic hazards other than potentially expansive soils. The nearest fault to
the project site is the La Nacion, 2.5 miles to the west. The geotechnical report
included appropriate recommendations to reduce potential hazards associated with
expansive soils. Because the project site is flat and inland ITOm the closest water body,
San Diego Bay, the geotechnical report concluded that potential impacts ITom
landslides, liquefaction and flooding are considered to be less than significant. An
updated geotechnical report for the proposed development will be required at the
grading pennit submittal stage, which shall include foundation recommendations based
on the proposed structures and appropriate soil testing and conditions to the
satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
b) See IILa. above. Proper engineering design would ensure that no such soils-related
impacts would result.
c) No significant changes to topographical features of the site would result since the project
site is flat.
d) The project site area is identified within urbanized areas of the City ofChula General
Plan EIR. No unique geologic or physical features exist within the proposed
development area.
e) All grading operations would be perfonned in compliance with the City ofChula Vista
Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). Short-tenn erosion during
construction would be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of
temporary erosion control devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These devices
may include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring. Protective
devices would be provided at every stonn drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the
stonn drain system. Erosion control measures would be installed as required by the City
Engineer.
f) See IILe. above. Compliance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01, through the
implementation of appropriate construction and post-construction best management
practices (BMPs), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer is required.
.58'
Page ~ 3
g) See ULa. above. No significant geological hazards to peop1e or property, such as
earthquakes, landslides, ground failures or similar hazards are anticipated to result
JTom the proposed development.
Potentially
Potentiall" Significant Less than
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result ill: Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage panerns, 0 0 iii 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 iii
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 iii 0
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 iii
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 iii
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 iii
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 iii
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 iii
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 iii
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 iii
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
a) According to the Engineering Department, the proposed construction of a mixed-use
project on the undeveloped project site would not result in a significant change to the
on-site absorption rate. There is an existing chain link fence and concrete swale
between the existing charter school and proposed project site. A previous lot line
adjustment resulted in the movement of the easterly property line ofthe project site 12
feet inside the chain link fence area separating the school and the project site.
According to the Engineering Department, the relocation of the existing fence line and
swale is required in order to complete this project and is part of the proposed MAAC
project. The conceptual grading plan proposes a 3-foot wide concrete cut-off brow
ditch replacing the existing concrete swale, in order to allow the continued capture of
~1
Page - 4
the school playground runoff. Final design specifications will be required prior to the
issuance of grading and improvements penTIits, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b) The site presently sheet flows towards Broadway, where a stOnTI drain inlet exists in
the street. The proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address stOnTI drain
runoff ITom the project site consist of flow guard catch basin inserts. They appear to
be sufficient for the proposed project according to the Engineering Department. The
submittal of a final drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of grading
and improvement penTIits to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and proposed
BMPs would be sufficient to serve the project; no significant impacts to the City's
stOnTI water drainage system are anticipated to result from the proj ect.
c) The project site is not within the lOa-year or 500-year floodplains and is not in
proximity to any bay or ocean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water
related hazards would result from the proposed development.
d) Through construction penTIit conditions of approval, the proposed project will be
required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs, where applicable, in
accordance with the City ofChula Vista StOnTI Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual in order to prevent pollution of downstream water bodies.
e) Based on the size and nature ofthe proposed development, and the location of the
project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes
in the amount of surface water in any water body, in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters.
f) According to the Kleinfelder, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic/Seismic
Hazards Study, no groundwater was encountered in borings to depths of 21.5 feet. No
changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected
to result from the proposed development. Therefore, the project will have no impact to
groundwater quantity or quality.
g) See IV.f. above.
h) See IV.f. above.
i) See IV.f. above. No alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters downstream of the
site are expected to result from the proposed development of the site.
j) The development of the proposal is not anticipated to result in a net increase in the
consumption of water otherwis.e available for public consumption or public water
supplies.
'-f-b
Page, 5
Putentially
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
hnpact Mitigated Impact hnpact
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 0
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 0
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 0
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 0
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
a) Based on the limited amount of site grading necessary to accommodate the proposed
development and because the proposal is estimated to generate egg 340 average daily
vehicle trips, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard
or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
b) The development of a mixed-use commerciaVresidential development is not
anticipated to result in an increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants.
No traffic congestion exists in the vicinity of the project site that would result in the
exposure of tenants to significant concentrations of air pollutants.
c) The proposed development is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, as the surrounding land uses
are commercial and residential in nature.
d) The City Zoning Ordinance allows for residential and commercial land uses. Neither
development nor operation of the proposed senior housing project or retail commercial
space would <;reate any objectionable odors.
e) The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of egg 340 average daily vehicle
trips. The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation; the
proposal would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air emissions or
the deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions would
be associated with the proposed project.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result ill:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion"
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
Potentially
Potentially Significant '-"'than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated lmp'ct Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
'-+/
Page, 6
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments:
a) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
0 0 0 I1J
0 0 0 I1J
0 0 0 I1J
0 0 0 I1J
o
o
o
I1J
o
I1J
o
o
b) See VI.a. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, no traffic safety hazards are
anticipated to result from the proposed mixed-use project.
c) According to the Fire Department and Police Department, the proposed site plan
provides for adequate emergency access from Sierra Way.
d) The proposal would result in a net gain of 45 on-site parking spaces for the exclusive
use of residential and commercial tenants, customers and visitors.
e) The proposal would not result in any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
f) Existing public transit bus routes. 932 and 932A run& north and south along Broadway,
which serves existing businesses, schools and residential areas in the surrounding
neighborhoods. No conflicts with tIH& these bus routes. or with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation would result.
g) No rail, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site;
therefore, the proposal would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts.
h) The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generated by the
mixed-use development; therefore, the project is not considered a "large project" under
the Congestion Management Program.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
lfl...
Page - 7
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 I1J
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e. g., heritage 0 0 0 t8I
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 t8I
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 t8I
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 t8I
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 t8I
efforts?
Comments:
a) The project site is presently vacant within an urban developed area. No habitat for
endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for
listing exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
b) See VILa. above. No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent
to the project site.
c) See VILa. above. No locally designated natural communities are present on or
immediately adjacent to the project site.
d) See VILa. above. No wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the
project site.
e) See VILa. above. The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors.
f) See VILa. above. The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less tban
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No
Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 t8I
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 t8I
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 t8I
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
\..{]
Page - 8
Comments:
a) The proposal would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) The proposal would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency
regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result
in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
c) According to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General
Plan Update (Chula Vista, 1989), the project site does not contain significant mineral
resources.
Potentially
IX. HAZARDS. Would (he proposal Involve: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 0
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 0
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 0
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 0
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 0
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a) There are no proposed features or aspects of the proposal that would represent a risk of
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. The proposed project consists
ofresidential and commercial/retail development. The applicant is required to show
proof of compliance with the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management
Division and City Fire Department hazardous materials storage requirements and fire
safety standards prior to issuance of building permits.
b) The proposal would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the
development of mixed-use commerciallresidential development on the project site.
d) No known sources of potential health hazards exist on the project site or in the
immediate vicinity.
....{..'t
Page - 9
e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing
dense flammable vegetation; furthennore, the proposed project is surrounded by
properties containing buildings constructed of steel and concrete and decorative
landscaping.
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
PotentiallJ Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact lmpal;t
D D 0 D
D D 0 D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Comments:
a) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
b) See Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Potentiall)' Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? D D D 0
b) Police protection? D D D 0
c) Schools? D D D 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including D D D 0
roads?
e) Other governmental services? D D D 0
Comments:
a) The 1,500 G.P.M. fire flows at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a two-hour duration as
required by the Chula Vista Fire Department is available to serve the proposal. According
to the Fire Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result
in a need for new or altered fire protection services.
b) According to the Police Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services.
c) Because the proposal is for 41 senior units, assumed to be occupied by 1-2 seniors per
unit, and one manager's unit, no adverse impacts to public schools would result.
Although. the manager's unit may contain a household with one or more school-age
children. this would not result in a significant school impact.
'-R)
Page - 10
d) The proposed project would be constructed and maintained entirely by the property
owner/applicant.
e) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon other goverrunental facilities.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D 0 D
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Fire/EMS D D 0 D
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the
cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met.
Comments:
Department.
The Fire threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Fire
Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are anticipated.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police D D 0 D
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1
calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of
7 minutes or less.
Comments: The Police threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Police
Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic D D D 0
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D"
can occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the standard
<.Iy
Page - 11
above, may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: According to the Engineering Department, all roadways within the project area are
projected to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the project traffic, in compliance
with the traffic threshold.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact :Mltigaled Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation D D D 0
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and
community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805.
Comments: Because the project site is located to the west of Interstate 805, the threshold
standard is not applicable. However, as a mixed-use development with a residential component
the proposal is subject to payment of park fees to be utilized to provide for furore park and
recreation facilities consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage D D 0 D
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard. ·
Comments: Tbe Engineering Department indicates that the project will be required to
construct new on-site and off-site drainage facilities. Tbe preliminary grading and
improvement plans include proposed drainage improvements that will improve the existing
conditions as well as handle the increased flow created by the project, according to the
Engineering Division. The project design and proposed drainage improvements will be
sufficient to reduce any impacts to a level of less than significant. According to the
Engineering Division, the proposed project will comply with the drainage threshold standard.
Potentially
Potentiall}' Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Sewer D D 0 D
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards.
Comments: No new sewer service facility would be required to serve the proposed project;
~l
Page - 12
however, engineering design of required sewer improvements or laterals to serve the project
would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards and
Sewer Threshold Standards.
Potentiall)'
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water D D 0 D
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments:
No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The project site is
an in-fill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area of the
Sweetwater Authority Water District. Pursuant to correspondence received from the
Sweetwater Authority Water District, dated August 14, 2002, the project may be serviced
from the existing 8-inch water main on Broadway. As noted in the August 27, 2002 Fire-
Flow Availability Letter from the Sweetwater Authority Water District, the project may be
served. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would
be less than significant.
PotentiaU}'
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Putentially Significant Less tban
Significant. Unless Significant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? D D 0 D
b) Communications systems? D D D 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D 0
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D D 0
e) Storm water drainage? D D 0 D
f) Solid waste disposal? D D D '"
Comments:
a) The project site is located with an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities
and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and
cOill1ections to such utilities and systems that are necessary to adequately service the
proposal would be implemented by the applicant, subject to the approval of the City
lff
Page-13
and/or the appropriate utilities and service providers. Impacts of the proposal to
utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
b) See XIII.a.
c) See XIII.a.
d) See XIII.a.
e) See XIII.a. The adequacy of the existing storm drainage facilities to serve the project
would be detennined prior to the issuance of construction pennits; any improvements
to the storm drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
f) See XIII.a. Pacific Waste Services provides solid waste disposal services for the
property. A new trash enclosure is proposed that would house three 4-cubic-yard bins,
one each for trash, mixed paper, and yard waste, along with two 96-gallon carts for
rigid recyclables. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project would
result in a net increase in solid waste generation; however, the applicant shall be
required to implement the City Solid Waste and Recycling Plan meeting all criteria for
convenient spacing for solid waste and recycling facilities, receptacles and common
area collection.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with
Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light?
Comments:
Potentially
PotcntiaUy Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D D 0
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, Broadway is not a designated scenic
roadway. Landscape treatments within a 10-foot wide strip along Broadway, K Street
\.fir
Page - 14
and Sierra Way and internal landscaping are proposed in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista Municipal Code (Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) and the Montgomery
Specific Plan as well as landscape and site architectural requirements and design
review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts
to these roadways are not adverse.
c) Broadway is currently being studied for revitalization opportunities under the
proposed Broadway Revitalization Plan. This type of infill project is supported by the
goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. In tenns of the project removing blight
influences and providing new structures and facilities and contributing to the
improvement of the area, directly and purposely linked to the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan and future goals of the Broadway Revitalization Plan.
d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and
would be designed with appropriate shielding, if necessary, to ensure that light does
not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent
roadways and surrounding properties.
e) See XIV.d.
PoteDliall~'
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the PotentiaUr Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D D D 0
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D 0
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D D D 0
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D D D 0
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General D D D 0
Plan EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present
within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below.
b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no
prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact
area. See XV.e. below.
-lJ
,)
Page - 15
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal.
e) Based on the previous level of site disturbance associated with existing site
improvements and adjacent site improvements, no impacts to archaeological resources
are anticipated.
POlentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
D
D
D
o
a) Limited excavation within undisturbed geologic fonnational material would be
required; therefore, the potential for the project to significantly impact paleontological
resources is considered to be less than significant.
Potentially
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 0
b) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or D D D 0
programs?
Comments:
a) The proposed project would not induce any significant population growth and, therefore,
would not result in a significant increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational opportunities.
b) The proposal would not affect existing recreational opportunities.
c) The proposal would not interfere with parks and recreational plans or programs.
<)I
Page -]6
XVIII. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population ansJ Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Paleontological 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
XX. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. .
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
;-)....
Page - 17
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination.
h-;~/r/~ y ,
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi j
Environmental Review Coordinator
5/q/iJ~
/ 'Date
,-:;'3
Page - 18
AttachmentS
Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-00S
April 21, 2003
1o)~~~nJ~1n\
~rAPR 2 5 2003 ~
Ms. Maria Muett
Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
PLANNING
Dear Ms. Muett,
~' f, 2003
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me regarding the proposed
Seniors on Broadway project located at 825 - 841 Broadway being
submitted by MAAC. As I indicated to you, I have a number of concerns
regarding the proposed project and the assumptions that are being used
to determine its viability in our neighborhood and its impact on our
neighborhood.
As I understand the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, its intent is to
make improvements to existing, blighted neighborhoods. Our
neighborhood was established over 45 years ago and many of its 1.
residents are the original homeowners. These homes are all in very good
condition and selling in the $200,000 - $300,000 range. They do not, in
my estimation, reflect a blighted condition.
When the Chula Vista Elementary School District proposed and
constructed the new Charter School at 590 'K' Street, we accepted this
new addition without complaint. This occurred even with the recognition
of the anticipated parking problems that have come to fruition and
impact our lives on a daily basis. However, the proposed MAAC project is
another matter. I have attended the community meetings that have
occurred to date, and I am concerned with the lack of specificity of the
proposed plan that has been presented to the neighborhood. I am even 2.
more concerned about comments made by the MAAC representatives
regarding the assumptions made about the "seniors" that they anticipate
will be occupying their project. As the project was explained it is to be a
mixed-use project with retail and senior apartments. Unfortunately, with
42 proposed units, only 45 parking spaces were induded. This is to
provide sufficient parking for tenants, retail commercial, guests and
MAAC social service workers. When questioned on the ratio of parking
spaces to potential users I was told, "don't worry, seniors don't drive
anyway". First I find this response insulting to my intelligence, and
VI
second, it makes me question the future for our neighborhood if this is
the mentality that MAAC will bring to the table. I am a senior citizen, 2.
and have been for some time. I still own a car; I still drive and hope to be
adding to the traffic count in this area for some time to come.
Some points of fact that will help in understanding the proposed project:
. Sierra Way was recently widened through a deal between the City
and the School District. Even so, the new street is still of
substandard width and lacks a sidewalk on the north side of the
street.
· As with most of the schools in our community, the charter school
creates a traffic jam in the morning and afternoons during the
drop-off and pick-up times of the students. There are times when
Sierra Way is so severely impacted; the local residents cannot use
it. When I discussed this situation with school officials and
crossing guards, I was informed that the traffic situation I
described on Sierra Way is only exceeded by the traffic generated
by the school on 'K' Street.
· The proposed site is approximately one acre, about the size of a
football field.
· The traffic problem will be exacerbated by the traffic trips
generated by the proposed MAAC project - estimated at more than
600 traffic trips daily. And, since seniors don't drive, according to
the MAAC representatives, this count could be underrepresented
in the traffic numbers.
· The footprint of the Charter School is in different location than
originally contemplated in the plans submitted to the City. I
understand that the City does not have jurisdiction over a school
site plan, however, if the change in the school footprint occurred in
anticipation of the MAAC project, or something like it, would City
approval have been required? The proposed project appears to
have been contemplated all along. A self-fulfilling prophecy? If
this is the case, should this have been considered in the initial
EIR?
· Traffic and parking appear to have been understated in the
Negative Declaration. - "The project site is presently vacant and
undeveloped. The established surrounding land uses consist of a
furniture store, mortuary, school, auto-related businesses and
miscellaneous retail uses. Unfortunately, the staff report failed to
mention that single-family residences are impacted daily by the
traffic generated by the Charter School and surround the proposed
site.
.~
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. Neither does the Negative Declaration take into account that our
neighborhood (our home) is bordered by Chula Vista High School
(CVHS) to the east and the Charter School to the west. CVHS is
approximately a quarter mile from the proposed site, and although
the traffic impact from the high school is not significant, the traffic
counts generated by the local leagues using the high school
athletic fields is significant, especially during soccer season. Often
this occurs on both Saturday and Sunday. There is no mention of
this in the Negative Declaration. I encourage you to inspect the
impact of this situation on a "soccer weekend". I believe you will
find those using the fields occupy every available parking space on
Fifth Ave., Sierra Way (approximately a third of the way to
Broadway) as well as impacting the side streets closer to Fifth.
During the week this traffic impact is replaced by the Charter
School traffic. And, now we want to add additional traffic trips. I
suggest that the traffic component of the Negative Declaration is
flawed and understated and does not identify the real traffic
situation created by pre-existing uses or the proposed project.
. Our residential streets are regularly used as short cuts to 'L' Street
and to Sierra Way, depending on the direction of the traffic to and
from the Charter School and athletic fields. This condition has
increased since the construction of the Charter School. As a
result, we must bear the brunt of numerous speeding and, at
times, reckless drivers.
. A better use for the site, especially given the lack of open space on
the west side of our City, would be to combine this site with the
existing playground at the school and create a mini-park for the
neighborhood.
I suggest that MAAC's mission statement to "make improvements to
blighted areas" can certainly be fulfilled by turning its attention to the
hotels and mobile home parks along Broadway. If they need low cost
housing, I suggest that these would create excellent opportunities for
neighborhood revitalization and be a welcome addition to the
neighborhood. There are numerous opportunities in our community, too
many in fact, that would benefit from a MAAC revitalization effort. Our
neighborhood is well established, clean and well kept. We accepted the
Charter School and we are learning to deal with the resulting traffic. We
do not need another project, or the additional traffic. There are many,
greater opportunities available to achieve the MAAC goal.
As I previously indicated, we are in need of parks on the west side of our
City and we have more than our fair share of affordable housing. I feel
as if I am fighting the fight that Chula Vista has fought for years - to not
become a dumping ground and not allow the more affluent of our
5'(..
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
community to not accept their fair share of affordable housing. Even at
the prices I mentioned earlier, we are the affordable housing in Chula
Vista. It is time to insure that well-established neighborhoods, such as 13.
ours, that are already impacted by existing schools, recreation centers
and other community services are not over-burdened with even more
development.
I hope you will consider and investigate some of the flaws I see in the
negative declaration regarding traffic, the description of the neighborhood
and other community uses. I encourage you to visit the neighborhood
and walk the proposed project site. Visit our neighborhood on weekends 14.
during soccer season, as well as during the school day when parents are
coming and going to school with their children. I believe you will see the
impact for yourself.
This project seems ill advised. Schools need more land for the children,
not less.
Respectfully,
Y~~C0~-~~
Bobbie Morris I
862 Cedar Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
r;::)
Attachment 8
Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008
1. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, does not address the
adequacy of the Negative Declaration.
2. Existing parking within the neighborhood associated with the charter school are not
attributable to the proposed project; furthennore, the City does not have the authority
to dictate how school operations are conducted. The development of the charter
school was approved by the Chula Vista Elementary School District; the District
adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA in conjunction with the
approval of the charter school. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the
District did not contemplate the existing pedestrian access point on Sierra Way,
which has resulted in persons dropping off and picking up students parking in the
surrounding neighborhood. The parking issue associated with the proposed project is
whether or not it would exacerbate this existing problem.
The majority of the patrons of the retail commercial businesses are expected to utilize
on-street parking on the project's Broadway and Sierra Way fTontages. On average,
the proposed one-bedroom, low-income senior apartments are expected to generate a
parking demand of 0.5 parking spaces per unit, or a total of approximately 22 spaces
including the two-bedroom manager's unit, as outlined in the Agenda Statement. The
off-street parking requirement for the proposed 2,219 square feet of retail commercial
space is II spaces. Based upon the project's anticipated parking demand and the
potential for approximately 14 on-street parking spaces along the project's Broadway
frontage, the proposed 45 off-street parking spaces are considered to be adequate to
meet the parking demand associated with the project.
3. Comment noted. This existing condition is not anticipated to contribute to a project-
related parking or traffic impact.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the District in conjunction with the
approval of the charter school identified the potential stacking of cars onto K Street at
the school's main entrance during drop-off and pick-up periods as a potentially
significant impact. To mitigate this impact, the District adopted a mitigation measure
consisting of traffic control signage instructing drivers to park their cars in the school
parking lot when dropping off or picking up students. The existing pedestrian access
point to the school on Sierra Way, which contributes to school-related traffic on
Sierra Way, was not contemplated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City staff
has initiated contact with the District to address school-related traffic issues
associated with the charter school neighborhood and will continue to do so; however,
the City does not have the authority to dictate how school operations are conducted.
Project-generated traffic, estimated to be 340 average daily trips based on the current
revised proposal, will be dispersed throughout the day; it is anticipated that a very
small percentage of these trips will occur on K Street and Sierra Way on weekdays
during charter school drop-off and pick-up periods. The current average daily traffic
~
Page I of3
Attachment 8
Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-OJ-008
volume on Broadway in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 22,000 trips.
Pursuant to 2002 SANDAG trip generation rates, the percentage of daily trips
generated by apartments that occur during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours is only 8
and 9 percent, respectively; only a portion of these trips are expected to occur on K
Street and Sierra Way. For most types of retail businesses, the percentage of daily
trips that occur during the A.M. peak hour is even less than the percentage of
apartment trips. Access to the on-site parking lot will be provided from Broadway.
The majority of the patrons of the retail businesses are expected to utilize on-street
parking on Broadway along the project frontage, which will further minimize the
amount of project traffic on Sierra Way and other residential streets in the
surrounding neighborhood.
5. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA
and, therefure, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration.
6. The trip generation projection for the project is based upon 2002 SANDAG trip
generation rates for the San Diego region. The rate utilized for the apartments was
six daily vehicular trips per unit (this rate is applicable to multi-family developments
of 20 or more dwelling units per acre). Because the initial trip generation projection
for the project was incorrectly based upon 9,010 square feet of retail commercial
space (the proposal is 2,219 square feet) and because the number of apartments has
been increased from 40 to 42 units, the number of average daily trips projected to be
generated by the project is 340 trips, not 600 trips as stated in the draft Negative
Declaration. The fact that the proposed apartments are proposed to be occupied by
low-income, senior residents had no bearing on the trip generation projection.
7. The City has no authority with respect to the siting of educational buildings on public
school campuses; therefore, City approval would not have been required for the
construction of the school building in its present location even if the current proposal
had been contemplated by the District at the time of construction. If the current
proposal was reasonably foreseeable by the District at the time they prepared the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the charter school, then it would have been
incumbent upon the District to assess the anticipated layout of the school campus and
to address to the extent possible the potential impacts of the current proposal.
However, despite the inclusion of the District's evaluation of the current proposal in
their CEQA document, the District would not have been able to develop the project
site as a non-educational facility prior to obtaining City approval.
8. Please refer to the response to comment 4 above.
9. With respect to project parking impacts, please refer to the response to comment 2
above. On weekends when sports league activities occur at nearby Chula Vista High
School, A.M. and P.M. peak period traffic volumes are less concentrated than
weekday peak periods associated with commuting patterns. Therefore, on weekends
project traffic will be more evenly dispersed throughout the day than on weekdays,
~
Page 2 of 3
Attachment 8
Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008
which will minimize the potential for a significant amount of project traffic to
coincide with sports league traffic. Based on the minimal contribution of project
traffic during peak periods, project traffic is not anticipated to result in either a
significant or cumulatively considerable traffic impact on neighborhood streets.
10. Comment noted; this comment does not address a potential environmental impact
pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration.
II. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA
and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration.
12. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA
and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration.
13. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA
and, therefore, does not address the adequacy ofthe Negative Declaration.
14. Please refer to the above responses to comments. Although it is acknowledged that
the charter school and sports league activities at Chula Vista High School generate
traffic and parking issues in the surrounding neighborhood, based upon staff s
analysis of the project it is not anticipated that either significant or cumulatively
considerable traffic or parking impacts will result fTom the project.
<",0
Page 3 of3