HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/05/09
AGENDA
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 9,2007
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
PlanningCommission:
Felber Vinson Moctezuma Bensoussan
- -
Tripp_Clayton _ Spethman_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
March 14,2007
March 21, 2007
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commissions' jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Beautification Awards Presentation and
Planning Commission Representative.
Planning Commission Agenda
-2-
May 9, 2007
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 05-44; Consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit for a carwash facility and
expansion/relocation of an existing convenience
store at a service station located within the Terra
Nova Plaza Shopping Center at 350 East H Street.
At the request of the applicant, staff is recommending a continuance of this public
hearing to a date uncertain.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCS 06-08; Consideration of a Tentative
Subdivision Map, to subdivide .26 acres into
seven (7) condominium units for individual
ownership at 148 Fourth Avenue. Applicant:
Michael Palumbo. (Quasi-Judicial)
Project Manager: Caroline Young, Assistant Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
To a Workshop Meeting of the Planning Commission
on May 16, 2007.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
March 14, 2007
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Members Present: Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Tripp, Clayton,
Speth man
Staff Members Present: Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Elisa Cusato, Deputy City Attorney 111
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2007
MSC (VinsonIBensoussan) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the minutes
of February 14, 2007 as submitted. Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA 06-02; Proposed amendments to Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 regulating
Accessory Second Dwelling Units.
Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner gave an overview of the proposed
amendments to the Accessory Second Dwelling Unit ordinance as presented in the
staff report.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council the adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.22, with any
additional amendments deemed appropriate.
Commission Comments:
5:44:48 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the two conflicting issues are whether ADU's
are "granny flats" intended for use by a family member, or are they counted as part of
the affordable housing stock. In her opinion, the owner-occupancy requirement goes
hand-in-hand with the "granny flat" concept.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 2 -
March 14, 2007
5:54:31 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she fails to see the rationale for requiring that parking
screening be provided exclusively with walls, fences or gates, to the exclusion of
landscaping. She indicated that the lack of space to construct a wall or fence could
exclude a number of properties that would otherwise meet all other requirements,
while landscaping could accomplish the same goal.
John Schmitz pointed out that the draft ordinance is merely, a compilation of ideas
and recommendations from staff and the community in an effort to minimize to the
lowest extent the impact of ADU's on the residential zone. He further stated that the
Commission has the prerogative to recommend adding, clarifying or deleting any
number of the proposed requirements.
6:04:29 PM Cmr. Tripp cautioned against setting up conditions, i.e. encroaching into the
setbacks in order to meet parking screening requirements, that would trigger
applying for a variance where hardship and reasonable use findings could not be
made.
6: 1 0: 15 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the Land Use Agreement, that is sLlppose
ensure that all of the requirements Linder the new ordinance are met, in his opinion,
is onerous to the property owner and should be part of the City's responsibility
through the planning and building process.
Mr. Schmitz responded that the intent behind this agreement is to memorialize all of
the requirements in the ordinance to the present and any subsequent owners of that
property because the agreement would be recorded on the title of the property.
6:14:31 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification on a number of issues, i.e.:
. Number of waste and recycling account
. The two-car garage requirement in the event that the primary residence does not
already have one
. Do CC&R's in Otay Ranch preclude ASDU's?
. Tandem parking
6:26:35 PM Public Hearing Opened.
6:27:34 PM Patricia Aguilar, stated that Crossroad II became involved in this effort at
the request of Council member McCann. Fred Cowles of Crossroads II took on this
challenge and volunteered to form a Task Force to look into this matter. The group met
regularly with City staff and held workshops to solicit input from the community. Ms.
Aguilar commended staff, specifically John Schmitz and Luis Hernandez, for their hard
work and exemplary community outreach.
6:30:58 PM Fred Cowles stated that the State of California's decision relegated the R-1
zone to an R-2 zone. The Ordinance Amendments that staff is proposing are an
excellent attempt to mitigate the ADU impacts and maintaining the integrity and
character of the R-1 zone. Mr. Cowles further stated that they support the owner-
occupancy requirement because it adds stability and maintains the pride of ownership
on the property.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 3 -
March 14, 2007
6:35:26 PM Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, gave a historical perspective as a
resident of the N. Second Ave. neighborhood since the early 1960's. He stated that
since then, the residents organized and opposed any attempt by developers to build
multi-family units. The fear was that their neighborhood would be transformed into what
North Park now is; a neighborhood with an over-saturation of apartment buildings. Mr.
Watry stated that he supports staff's recommendations, specifically the owner-
occupancy requirement, and urged the Commission and City Council to uphold its long
history of a commitment to maintain the integrity of the single-family residential zone.
6:43:48 PM Margaret Tuite stated she supports the draft ordinance, especially the
owner-occupancy requirement. Ms. Tuite indicated that her experience has been that
the un-kept properties in her neighborhood have been those that are rentals. She urged
the Commission to protect the character of the single-family neighborhood.
6:44:58 PM Kevin O'Neill, 621 Del Mar Avenue, gave a brief background of his
involvement in precipitating the implementation of an ADU Ordinance. The impetus to
this endeavor was the State of California's decision on the Santa Monica case, which,
among other things, allows ADU's by right. He cautioned that, based on the research he
has done, the owner-occupancy requirement would be indefensible in court. The
important elements of the ordinance need to address setbacks, design compatibility with
primary residence and parking.
6:55:04 PM Philip Lopez, 20 Second Avenue, stated that the proposed ADU
amendment provides a reasonable compromise between the State mandates and the
City's need to protect the R-1 zone. He further indicated he would like to see a 2
bedroom ADU be required to provide 2 parking spaces, as well as a limitation between
the size of the lot and the size of the ADU. He commended staff for their effort in making
this a participative process involving the community.
6:57:28 PM Frank Lazarro, 95 D Street, stated that an ADU was constructed next to his
property and he was one who complained about the negative impact on his privacy and
quality of life. For the most part he supports the draft ordinance amendments, however,
he would like to see tighter language address sloping conditions going both ways. In his
case, his property sits on higher ground and overlooks the roof top of the ADU, which
involves a privacy issue. Another issue not mentioned in the draft ordinance is smoke-
related impacts, i.e. when there is a fireplace and the ADU sits on lower terrain.
7:02:10 PM Mrs. Lazarro stated she supports the draft ordinance, however, wished to
point out that the State's contention that ADU's help provide affordable housing, is not
exactly accurate. The unit that was built next to their home is renting for $1,200 p/mo.
Mrs. Lazarro stated that according to her research other jurisdictions have more
stringent regulations that address blockage of light, views and chimneys.
704:51 PM Raul Tellez, 601 Palomar St. stated that just because there are a handful of
poorly designed ADU's should not create a hardship on those that are yet to be built;
those who find themselves in a true necessity to build an ADU for a family member who
is disabled or an aging parent. The draft ordinance needs refinement and believes that
the smaller size makes it too hard to provide adequate space for the disabled who have
need of specialized equipment. Additionally, the owner-occupancy requirement needs to
be reconsidered.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 -
March 14, 2007
7:12:55 PM Darren Dalton, 325 Spruce St. stated he has an ADU, which is one that
caused controversy because the unit sits on higher ground in a lot that has a steep
slope. Mr. Dalton expressed his disagreement with the owner-occupancy requirement.
As a career military person, he may receive orders for relocation in short notice. This
requirement would force him to sell his property in a nearly impossible timeframe. This
requirement creates an unreasonable hardship and undoubtedly would be challenged in
court. Mr. Dalton is also concerned with the setback requirement, and with the 20%
reclaimed unusable land.
7:18:38 PM Jose Alberti, 1133 Quinto Creek Place, Chair of the DRC offered the
following comments:
. that the key issue is design; the new structure needs to be compatible in design, color
and materials with the existing residence.
. supports the smaller unit size of 650 sf, which is adequate for a one bedroom granny flat.
. opposes the owner-occupancy requirement.
. Concurs with the State that ADU's are a means by which to create affordable housing.
7:20:16 PM Russ Hall, 59 Sierra Way, stated that whatever is adopted in the ordinance,
must be enforceable and City staff needs to be able and willing to regulate it. Mr. Hall
inquired how would the ordinance address and enforce the affordability of the units.
Mr. Schmitz responded that nothing in the State law requires that that be a factor. Staff
has never considered putting a rent control on these units. The issue of making these
units compatible with neighborhoods was dealt with strictly from a land use and design
standpoint.
7:30:54 PM Jerry Scott, stated he supports the draft ordinance amendment and
indicated that his property has a 650 sf ADU, which is where his elderly parents-in-law
lived and the size was more than adequate.
7:34:06 PM Public Hearing Closed.
7:34:20 PM Cmr. Bensoussan offered the following comments:
. The visual impacts need to be considered not just from the public right-of-way, but the
view from the surrounding neighbors as well.
. higher density is more compatible the closer you move to the heart of downtown Third
Avenue, in the heart of the urban core, in order to support the revitalization of
downtown.
. a good ordinance can make up for the fact that the State will not allow us to notify the
surrounding neighborhood through the noticing process.
. Would like to see tighter language stating that the use of landscaping is a means by
which to address privacy issues when there is a reverse slope and you're looking
down into your neighbor's backyard.
7:45:35 PM Cmr. Vinson stated he fails to see why there seems to be a pervasive
thought in western Chula Vista that renters or rental property is seen as something
negative and threatens the stability of R-1 zone, when in eastern Chula Vista, the
developers are required to designate a percentage of their development to be high
density rental property.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 5 -
March 14, 2007
7:47:03 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated that the issue on enforceability is a valid one and
questions who would do the enforcing, particularly in the owner-occupancy requirement;
she would be in favor of making special allowances to the owner-occupancy requirement
for special circumstances, i.e. those in the military.
7:51 :09 PM Cmr. Clayton stated she is reluctant to set up regulations that encourage
people to circumvent or outsmart the system, in order to fulfill to the owner-occupancy
requirement. As an example, she said that someone could place the tenant's name on
the title and the original owner could move out.
7:55:29 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the spirit of the ordinance is one of compatibility
and blending in the R-1 zone with one of the biggest issues being design and parking.
Mr. Spethman restated the language in the State's regulations, which states that, "...fees
and requirements will not be arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to restrict the
construction of a second unit."
Cmr. Spethman offered the following comments:
. does not share the opinion that rental property degrades the neighborhood
. does not support the owner-occupancy requirement because its not enforceable and is
an erroneous belief that it will ensure that pride of ownership will exist and the property
will be kept up
. opposes the requirement to have the accessory unit attached to the primary residence
for the following reasons:
o as long as you meet the setback and size, a pre-manufactured unit may
conceivably be installed; how would you attach that structure to the existing one?
o if you have a beautiful patio with outdoor kitchen and/or spa; how could you
require that it be demolished in order to attach the unit?
o there are communities being built in east Chula Vista that have detached ADU's
called "casitas"; are we going to require the developers amend their development
plans requiring the casitas to be attached?
. 850 sf, is an adequate size for a young couple with a child, or an elderly couple or
person that requires a wheelchair or motorized chair to get around.
8:08:25 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that there ought not to be any distinctions made in the R-
1 zone whether or not it is close to the urban core. The State has determined that
ADU's are allowed by right and we need to put together a reasonable ordinance that is
not unduly burdensome and does not micro-manage the construction of these units.
8: 16:41 PM Cmr. Clayton offered the following comments:
. restated her concern with the enforceability issues over the owner occupancy-
requirement;
. a small size unit does not eqLlal an affordable unit when there are 750 sf 2
bedroom apartments renting in eastern Chula Vista for $1,300;
. all homeowners property rights needs to be considered and would like the
regulation to better reflect the different scenarios regarding owner occupancy i.e.,
is a derelict property the responsibility of an owner or is it a code enforcement
issue; additionally, where are the private property rights when an owner may be
forced into a distress sale to accommodate a familial emergency such as a
military reassignment, death or illness.
. Concern with requirement for wall or fence screening of parking.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6 -
March 14, 2007
8:19:12 PM Cmr. Felber; offered the following comments:
. opposes the garage requirement where there isn't one on the primary home
because it increases the density of the lot and reduces the overall open space
feeling of the neighborhood;
. concurs that the owner-occupancy requirement may cause an undo distress sale
and, in his opinion, be construed as discriminatory because single residence
owners are able to move OLlt and rent their residence, but if there is an ADU's,
this would not be allowed.
8:35:32 PM Cmr. Moctezuma offered the following comments:
. it's very disturbing to her that the State has determined that the R-1 zone can be
changed into R2 by allowing these units by right,
. The distinction between a single residence property owner who decides to move
out and rent his home is not the same as a property owner with an ADU renting
both the primary home and the secondary home. With the former scenario, the
R-1 zone is in no way being compromised, therefore, she supports the owner-
occupancy requirement.
8:41 :50 PM Cmr. Bensoussan made the following comments:
. the owner-occupancy requirement does not preclude the owner from renting out
his house, it merely means that he has to live in one unit or the other.
. supports the owner-occupancy requirement because, in her opinion, it is a
disincentive to building these units for profit gain.
. staff has gone through great lengths in considering all of the input from the
community with respect to height, size, whether its attached or detached, garage
requirements, etc.; its has all been considered taking into account what is in the
best interest of preserving and minimizing to its fullest extend the impacts to the
R-1 zone.
8:52:06 PM MSC (VinsonIClayton) that the Planning Commission recommends
adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following
changes:
. grandfather in the existing CUP's unless they apply for a new permit
. remove the owner-occupancy requirement
. remove the parking screening as it is previously regulated with landscape
requirements only
. allow the expansion of the BPA through regarding, but with a limit of 20%
of the original buildable area;
. remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached.
Cmr. Bensoussan offered an amendment to the parking screening requirement
that it include the option to either fulfill this requirement through the use of
landscaping or the construction of a wall. The maker and second of the motion
accepted the amendment.
Jim Hare asked for clarification on the motion concerning non-conforming situations. He
indicated that existing regulations already covered that.
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 -
March 14, 2007
Cmr. Vinson amended his motion to deleting bullet point #1 from his original
motion.
Call For The Question by Cmr. Tripp.
Vote on Call For The Question (4-3) with Commissioners Moctezuma, Bensoussan
and Felber voting against it.
Amended motion:
MSC (VinsonlClayton) (5-1-0-1) that the Planning Commission recommends
adoption of the draft ordinance amending Section 19.58.022 with the following
changes:
. remove the owner-occupancy requirement
. that parking screening may be provided through the use of landscaping or
the construction of walls, fences, or gates;
. allow the expansion of the BPA through regrading, but with a limit of 20%
of the original buildable area;
. remove the criteria that requires units on smaller lots to be attached.
Motion carried with Cmr. Felber voting against the motion and Cmr. Bensoussan
abstaining.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 to a regular Planning Commission meeting on March
28, 2007.
Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
March 21, 2007
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Members Present:
Felber, Vinson, Moctezuma, BensoLlssan, Tripp, Clayton,
Spethman
Staff Members Present:
Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director
Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 06-25; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
establish and operate a permanent outside sales and
display of merchandise for a proposed Home Depot Store at
1030 Third Avenue.
5: 12:44 PMBackground: Rich Zumwalt reported that the project site is an 11.10-acre lot
located at the southwest corner of Third Avenue and Moss Street. The Home Depot is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for permanent outside sales and display of four
different categories of merchandise including building materials; outdoor equipment; outdoor
furniture and storage units; and live goods and landscape supplies.
An Initial Study (IS 06-07) was conducted and based on its results, the Environmental
Review Coordinator determined that the overall project could result in significant effects on
the environment. Subsequently, the applicant made and/or agreed to changes that would
avoid the effects or mitigate them to a point where no significant effects would occur,
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (IS-06-07) and approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC 06-25
based on the findings and subject to conditions contained therein.
Planning Commission
- 2 -
March 21, 2007
5:23:36 PMCommission Comments:
Cmr. Bensoussan expressed concern with and inquired if bulk lumber, sheet rock, masonry
or roofing material would be allowed under the category of Display of Merchandise.
Richard Zumwalt responded that they would not be allowed and pointed out that under
Section III. 5.c. of the RDA Resolution states, "The bulk storage of products, including
lumber, is prohibited in areas set aside for Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise."
Cmr. Tripp inquired if any of the member of the public who opposed the project, due to
potential environmental impacts, presented any expert opinion that refuted the findings of
consultant that the applicant retained to conduct the environmental review. Additionally,
Cmr. Tripp inquired how does the City ensure that the mitigation measure are complied with.
Steve Power responded that there was considerable public controversy, but no outside
qualified technical reports were submitted. The applicant agreed to the mitigation measures
and the City has a Mitigation Monitor on staff; should there be any violations of the MMRP,
it would be addressed through Code Enforcement.
5:37:17 PM Cmr. Felber inquired if there were any signs posted along Moss St., west of the
project, stating that there is no truck traffic allowed.
Mr. Powers responded that althoLlgh Moss St. is not a truck route, the Vehicle Code states
that you are entitle to direct ingress and egress off of a designated truck route; in this case it
would be off of Third Avenue, onto the driveway on Moss Avenue, however, not any further
to the west along Moss Avenue.
5:43: 19 PM John Ziebarth applicant, gave a presentation of the project's progress over the
last two years that its been going through the entitlement process. The project underwent
two Preliminary Design Review workshops to work out issues on site planning and
architecture to soften the outside display areas. They also conducted a neighborhood
meeting last August and met with citizens, as well as the Southwest Civic Association and
The Environmental Health Coalition. They met with the RCC and they concurred that the
MND addressed all of the issues. Mr. Ziebarth stated that they have done their best to
address all of the issues and concerns and they have gone above and beyond the minimum
standards and the mitigation measure that they are required to do.
6:12:43 PM Cmr. Bensoussan asked the following questions:
· Do they intend to display, sheet rock, landscape timbers, fence panels and plywood
. Is it possible to have a six month review period to see if the noise mitigation
measures are working
. Will this project contribute 1 % to go toward public arts.
Mr. Ziebarth stated that these materials will not be displayed.
Mr. Powers stated that the Mitigation Monitor would oversee the project's overall compliance
of the mitigation measures. Code Enforcement would also be available to respond to any
complaints that are received.
Planning Commission
- 3 -
March 21, 2007
Jim Hare stated that if there's an obligation to provide those fees for public art, it would be
collected at the time that building permit fees are paid.
Cmr. Tripp inquired if the noise attenuation was to the standards of Multi-Family or Single-
Family Residential.
Mr. Ziebarth responded that the zoning is Multi-Family and those are the standards that
were used.
6:24:01 PM Cmr. Vinson inquired how many job opportunities does the average Home
Depot generate.
Mr. Ziebarth responded that it would be between 175 to 225 new jobs and the sales tax
revenue would be approximately $400,000 per year.
Public Hearing Opened.
6:26:29 PM Steve Warfield, representing C.W. Clark, owner of the property immediately to
the south of the proposed project, stated that they are excited to be working along side
Home Depot in developing the commercial center and are very optimistic that the new EI
Tigre Market will be a great addition to the center, attracting a reciprocal client base and
creating a vibrant shopping center.
6:28:54 PM Charles Moore, President of Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce stated that
ever since the major tenants (K-Mart and Ralph's) closed for business, the abandoned
commercial center has become a transient magnet. He is very pleased that with the new
tenants (Home Depot and EI Tigre Market) the center will once again be a vibrant place to
shop.
6:30:20 PM Lisa Cohen, stated the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce supports the Home
Depot proposal and believes that it meets the City's redevelopment goals for the following
reasons: the property is zoned Commercial in a redevelopment district; the current
commercial use has been abandoned, creating a blight condition; the environmental
analysis concludes that the project will have no impacts on the surrounding neighborhood;
the store will produce approximately $400,000 in tax revenue to the City; and, 200 plus jobs
will be created.
6:33:07 PM Steve Palma gave a brief chronology of his involvement as a long-time civic
activist and long-time resident of southwest Chula Vista. He indicated that the community
eagerly anticipates the opening of the Home Depot and the reopening of this commercial
center.
6:38:19 PM Rosa Camacho, representing Naples Plaza Dental, which occupies the space
next to the former Ralph, stated that she is very please and looking forward to the center
generating more traffic and patrons as a result of the opening of the new businesses like the
Home Depot and the EI Tigre Market.
6:39:51 PM David Leaf stated he is disappointed at the length of time this project has been
under review; over two years. He is excited and looking forward to the Grand Opening of
the Home Depot and urged staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council to expedite its
approval process.
Planning Commission
- 4-
March 21, 2007
6:40:41 PM Juan Cruz, representing Beyer Supreme Tires, expressed his frustration with
the amount of time that the entitlement process takes. He indicated that this is the perfect
project going into an area that is blighted and has long been overdue for quality
redevelopment projects. He enthusiastically supports the project and urged the City to
expedites its opening.
Public Hearing Closed.
MSC (SpethmanlTripp) (7-0) that the Planning Commission recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (15-06-07) and approval of Conditional Use Permit
PCC 06-25 based on the findings and subject to conditions contained therein. Motion
carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCZ 06-05; PCM 07-15; Consideration of an application for
1.92 acres known as Marsella Villas on northside of Ada
Street between Frontage Rd. and Industrial Blvd; Rezone
from R-2-P, One and Two Family Residence, Precise Plan
to R-3-P, Apartment Residential, Precise Plan zone, and
amending the adopted Precise Plan Modifying District to
include Precise Plan Development Standards.
7:03: 11 PM Background: Rich Zumwalt reported that the proposal is a request to rezone
and establish Precise Plan development standards for 1.92 acres within the Palomar
Gateway planning district in order to develop the property with 40 multi-family residential
condominium units with the potential to add up to 7 additional units in the future.
The site's General Plan designation is Mixed Use Transit Focus Area. Since the project was
submitted prior to the adoption of the General Plan Update, staff agreed to process the
application with the caveat that an urban designer be retained by the City and paid by the
applicant to prepare an urban design strategy to ensure that the development proposal is
consistent with the General Plan. Downtown Solutions was hired to prepare the strategy and
is an expert analysis of how transit-oriented design guidelines can be applied to the Palomar
gateway District.
7:08:36 PM Jorge Sanchez, applicant, stated that Palomar St. is the first gateway from the
south into ChLlla Vista and they have focused on developing this area. They developed a
14-unit townhouse project called Ada Terrace last year; Ada Villas, a 12-unit townhome
project, and presently are selling a third project on the same street. They are planning to
develop Trolley Villas in the future. Mr. Sanchez stated that they are eager to move forward
in the entitlement process to obtain the necessary permits for demotion of existing
abandoned properties that have caused security impacts to the residents in the newly
developed areas due to their attracting transients and illegal activity.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ-06-05 and
PCM 07-15 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission
- 5 -
March 21, 2007
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS 06-05; and adopt the draft City Council
Ordinance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
7:13:18 PM Commission Comments:
7:14:26 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that under the "Public Comments and Staff
Responses" section of the report, she would have liked to have read a more complete
version of the public comments, instead of the very brief synopsis that was provided by staff.
She encouraged staff to be a little more explicit in the future.
7:18:17 PM Cmr. Vinson questioned why the seven units are being left out at this time for
future development.
Rich Zumwalt responded that the applicant that owns the center site "C" has not submitted a
Design Review Application. Mr. Sanchez, who owns site "A" and "B" has submitted the
Design Review application that is in process, so we know the exact yield of sites A & B.
What we're approving is a zoning designation that's going to allow a maximum yield of a
certain number of units.
7:25:29 PM Felipe Villasante, 777 Ada St., resides in one of the first projects built by Mr.
Sanchez, stated that he supports this project for the following reasons. There are
abandoned houses in the vicinity that are presently being used by transients homeless
people and even gang members. He urged the applicant and Commission to require
additional lighting for security and to expedite the redevelopment and image of this area as
a gateway corridor into Chula Vista.
7:27:49 PM Nadia Salos, 777 Ada St. stated that she too supports the development of this
project in an expedited manner because the security issues they have to deal with and live
with on a daily basis.
7:29:49 PM Cmr. Spethman inquired what, if any, arrangements have been made to have
secLlrity on the premises.
7:30:28 PM Jorge Sanchez responded that they do have a security guard overseeing the
projects that are completed, and in fact, he is the one that generally ends up making calls to
the Police Department to come and check OLlt the activities that are taking place in the
abandoned properties.
Cmr. Spethman encouraged the applicant to work with staff to address some of the issues
of concern with safety that the surrounding residents have raised and develop a better
strategy to mitigate the impacts i.e. additional lighting and more security manpower.
7:37:33 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that a goodwill effort to try to mitigate some of the
security concerns that have been raised would be to have better lighting in the area and
recommended that the applicant invest in installing flood lights that turn on from dusk to
dawn.
7:39:00 PM Close Public Hearing.
Planning Commission
- 6-
March 21, 2007
7:39:14 PM MSC (SpethmanIClayton) (7-0) That the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution PCZ-06-05 and PCM 07-15 recommending that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS
06-05; and adopt the draft City Council Ordinance based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 07-01; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
permit Leap and Bound Academy, a 16,381 sf childcare
learning center on a Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
site within the Rollings Hills Ranch planned community.
Staff recommends that the public hearing be opened and continued to the March 28, 2007
Planning Commission meeting.
MSC (VinsonITripp) (7-0) that the Planning Commission open public hearing and
continue it to March 28, 2007. Motion carried.
7:50:36 PM Meeting adjourned to a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2007.
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date:05/09/07
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map,
PCS-06-08, to subdivide .26 acres into seven (7) condominium units for
individual ownership at 148 Fourth Ave. Applicant: Michael Palumbo.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building
INTRODUCTION
The applicant submitted a Tentative Map application proposing to convert an existing apartment
complex into seven (7) condominium units for individual ownership. The apartment complex is
about 18 years old and was originally approved by the Design Review Committee.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2007 the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the Design Review
application associated with this condominium conversion Tentative Subdivision Map. The
applicant has completed the tenant noticing required by the State and by the Municipal Code up
to this point prior to Tentative Map consideration (see Attachment G, Noticing Documentation).
Once all necessary approvals are obtained the owners will notify the tenants with the remaining
notices required by the State and by the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies
for a Class 1 (existing facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, PCS-06-08, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
PCS-06-08
Page No.2
DISCUSSION
Project Site Characteristics:
The 68' x 125' rectangular shaped property is located at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Flower
Street in the northern portion of Chula Vista (see Attachment A, Locator Map). The apartment
complex consists of seven 2-bedroom units featuring I-car garages, open parking spaces, and
common landscaped areas. The property is surrounded by apartment units to the north and east,
and single-family homes to the south and west.
The parcel is relatively level with vehicular access from Flower Street. The apartment complex is
a two-story, rectangular-shaped wood structure housing seven one-car garages in the rear of the
building and the units above (see Attachment I, Project Plans).
Proj ect Description:
The Design Review permit proposed no significant exterior structural changes. Instead minor
design upgrades proposed include repairing or replacing fencing, providing new landscaped area
and a new trash enclosure. The applicant has painted the exterior of the building recently. For
interior improvements, each unit would be renovated to provide new carpet, tile, doors, windows,
hardware and storage areas. The existing laundry room facilities would also be removed and
individual laundry facilities would be provided in each unit.
The project also includes property and individual unit upgrades such as: new fencing and gates,
gutters and downspouts, new water heaters, etc. A more complete list of proposed improvements
is included in Attachment E, Proposed Upgrades.
A Physical Elements report, commissioned by the applicant, also identifies recommended
improvements to bring the property and individual units to acceptable condominium ownership
standards (see Attachment E, Physical Elements Report). Staff has incorporated the
recommendations as conditions of approval.
Table I below lists the existing services utilities within the project.
Air conditioning Individual unit
Heating Individual electric wall heaters
Water heaters Individual gas-fired hot water heater III
garage
Gas Individual gas meters
Electric meter Individual electrical meters
Water HOA
Sewer HOA
*Cable Individual unit
*Telephone Individual unit
Table 1: Existing Utilities
*Not covered in the HOA
PCS-06-08
Page No.3
The maintenance and monthly payment of the utilities would be addressed in the project's
CC&Rs. The units are already served by separate gas and electric meters, while water and sewer
will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association.
Compliance with Development Regulations:
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Residential Medium High
Residential Medium High
Residential Medium High
Residential Medium High
Residential Medium High
Zoning
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
Current Land Use
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Proj ect Data:
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Required Proposed/Existin!!
Building Setbacks: Building Setbacks:
Front: 15' Front: 26'
Side: 5' & 5' Side: 6'
Ext. Side: N/A Ext. Side: 10'
Rear: 15' Rear: 42'-28"
Building Height: 28'/45' Building Height: 27' -6"
Parking: 2 parking spaces per unit Parking: I-car garages per unit, plus I open
parking spaces per unit
Open Space: 400 sq. ft. per unit/2,800 sq. ft. Open Space: 416 sq. ft. per unit/2,912 sq. ft.
Storage: 200 cu. ft./ 2 bedroom unit Storage: (see Table 2 below)
Analysis:
A condominium conversion project must satisfy certain City Code requirements including the
Chula Vista Design Manual, Chapter 19.28 and Chapter ]5.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (CVMC), the California Fire Code, and Uniform Building Code, and other regulatory
documents. The following paragraphs discuss some of the major requirements, such as: open
space, storage, off-street parking, tenant relocation, design guidelines, noticing documentation,
physical element report, housing inspection, separate service meters, CC&Rs, and fire protection
in more detail.
Open Space:
CVMC Section 19.28.090 requires 400 square feet of common usable open space per unit;
therefore, the project must provide a minimum of 2,800 square feet of open space. The existing
open space includes a front yard landscaped area and small landscaped strips along the sides and
PCS-06-08
Page No.4
rear of the property. In addition, each unit has a 60 sq. ft private porch or balcony, except one
unit has a 129 sq. ft. porch on the first floor and a 129 sq. ft. balcony on the second floor.
However, the second floor balcony is not counted toward the open space requirement since it is
located off of two bedrooms (see Attachment I, Project Plans).
Storage:
Section 15.56.020 requires a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage for each two bedroom unit. The
applicant will provide a 66 cu. ft. hanging storage cabinet in each existing garage (see Attachment
I, Project Plans). The additional storage area is provided either underneath the stairs or in the attic,
as illustrated in Table 2 below. The combined total area of storage space for each unit varies, but
all units exceed the minimum requirement. A minimum of70% of the storage area is contiguous to
the unit. The storage facilities shall be installed prior to final inspection or occupancy of the
condominiums. No additional work is required to provide the storage within the attic space and the
storage area below the stairway since it currently exists.
Unit Storage Storage in Storage below Storage in Total Provided
No. Required Garage stairs Attic
I 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. 154 cu. ft. - 220 cu. ft.
2 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. - 5, 200 cu. ft. 5,266 cu. ft.
3 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. 154 cu. ft. - 220 cu. ft.
4 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. - 2,170 cu. ft. 2,236 cu. ft.
5 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. - 850 cu. ft. 916 cu. ft.
6 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. - 2,170 cu. ft. 2,236 cu. ft.
7 200 cu. ft. 66 cu. ft. - 850 cu. ft. 916cu. ft.
Table 2: Proposed Storage
Off-street parking:
In the R3 zone, a minimum of 2 standard size open parking spaces are required for each two-
bedroom unit. The project provides seven standard size I-car garages and seven open parking
spaces. The 24-ft wide access driveway provides sufficient room for ingress and egress
maneuvers.
Tenant Relocation:
The applicant wiIl assist, to the best of his ability, each of the current tenants with the
opportunity of ownership. For those who do not desire to purchase or are unable to qualify for
bank financing, the applicant will offer to pay an amount equal to one month's rent to assist with
relocation. The tenant will have the option of not having to pay their last month's rent or
receiving an equivalent payment. Payments will be paid to the tenant's new property
management company within the last 30 days of their tenancy. The tenant will additionally have
the option ofreceiving the incentive, directly upon vacating their individual dwellings.
PCS-06-08
Page No.5
Design Guidelines:
The applicant has submitted a Design Review application that was approved by the Zoning
Administrator on April 20, 2007. The Design Review permit proposed no significant changes, but
rather minor design upgrades, including repairing or replacing fencing, providing new landscaped
area and a new trash enclosure, etc. (see Attachment I, Project Plans). For interior improvements,
each unit will be renovated to provide new carpet, tile, doors, windows, hardware, storage areas,
etc. The existing laundry room facility that was illegally built inside one of the garages would also
be removed and individual laundry facilities will be provided in each unit. The current location of
the laundry room facility will be converted back into a garage space for the individual tenants use.
Noticing Documentation
Pursuant to Section 66452 of the Subdivision Map Act, condominium conversion projects must
satisfy certain noticing requirements for specified time periods. The Table 3 below identifies the
noticing requirements and when existing and prospective tenants should receive them. The tenants
have been made aware of the condominium conversion project proposal since June 2005.The
tenant that has moved in since then has been given a notice prior to signing his or her lease
agreement. Each tenant will be given notice of having the first option to purchase a unit. The
Table also shows when the Applicant met these requirements. Sample notices provided by the
Applicant are attached (see Attachment G, Noticing Documentation).
NOTICE REQUIREMENT HOW LONG & WHEN COMPLIANCE
60-day notice to all existing tenants 60 days prior to filing a Design 60-day notices were sent
of intent to convert - "Fonn A"* Review and Tentative Map certified mail to existing
application with the Citv tenants on June 6, 2005.
Notice to all prospective tenants of Prior to acceptance of any rent Applicant has submitted a
intent to convert - "Fonn B"* or deposit from the prospective signed notice by the new
tenant tenant in Apt. #5 that moved
in after June 6, 2005.
lO-day notice to all existing tenants 10 days before or after To be detemllnedl Typically
of an application of a Public Report - submittal of the Public Report following Final Map approval
"Fonn C" to the Department of Real
Estate
lO-day Notice to all existing tenants Within 10 days of approval of To be detenninedl Typically
of Final Map approval- "Fonn D" the Final Map by the City following Final Map approval
Notice to all prospective tenants of Prior to acceptance of any rent To be detennined prior to
option to purchase/tennination of or deposit from the prospective approval of Final Map
tenancy - "Fonn E" tenant
90-day Notice to all existing tenants For a period of 90 days after To be detennined prior to
of option to purchase/tennination of issuance of the Public Report approval of Final Map
tenancy - "Fonn F" from the Department of Real
Estate
l80-day notice to all existing tenants 180 days prior to tennination of l80-day notices were sent
of intent to convertltennination of tenancy certified mail to existing
tenancy - "Fonn G" tenants on November 29,
2005.
Table 3: Noticing Documentation
* Attachment E - Noticing Documentation
PCS-06-08
Page No.6
The City Council only needs to find that the Applicant has submitted Forms "A" and "B" prior to
the approval of the Final Map. The remaining notices are required after approval of the Final Map.
Physical Element Report:
The applicant submitted a "Physical Element Report" (See Attachment F) prepared by Lorber
Engineers for review by the City's Building Official. The report concludes that the existing
apartment complex is in overall fair condition with minor defects, considering the age of the
existing building. After reviewing the recommendations, staff concludes that the proposed
improvements will satisfy the Building Code requirements if the recommended improvements are
constructed or put in place. Staff has included the report recommendations as conditions of
approval in Attachment C, draft City Council Resolution.
Housing Inspection:
The Project is required to conform to Uniform Housing Code requirements in existence at the time
of the approval of the Subdivision Map. The project completed two housing inspections on June 2,
2005 and July 6, 2005 where all items were repaired or corrected, except for two items being
deferred to the building permit process. The applicant is required, by condition of approval, to
correct any deficiencies prior to Final Map approval. The two items included reinstalling the GFCI
duplex receptacles in the garage from the house meter to the unit meter and each unit shall be
served by separate electric meters.
Separate Service Meters:
Each unit has individual gas and electric meters. A Homeowner's Association will be responsible
for the water and sewer service utility meters. The Applicant shall provide CC&R's prior to final
map approval showing how this will be satisfied.
CC&Rs:
The Project is conditioned to provide evidence of declarations of covenants, conditions and
restrictions in conjunction with approval of the Final Map.
Fire Protection:
The project shall comply with the California Fire Code including, but not limited installing smoke
detectors to be hardwired and interconnected with battery backup capabilities in each bedroom and
hallway leading to bedroom.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of Planning Commissioners and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this action.
PCS-06-08
Page NO.7
CONCLUSION:
This project is consistent with the Multi-Family Residential (R3) Zone, General Plan designation
of Residential High, Design Manual, Landscape Manual, and all other applicable codes and
regulations of the Municipal Code.
Based on the preceding information, the project, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance
with the requirements for condominium conversion and that the City Council can approve the
Tentative Map subject to the conditions listed in the attached City Council Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
The application fees and processing costs are paid for by the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Locator Map
B. Planning Commission Resolution
C. Draft City Council Resolution
D. Zoning Administrator Design Review Notice of Decision
E. Proposed Upgrades
F. Physical Elements Report - "Executive Summary"
G. Noticing Documentation
H. Disclosure Statement
1. Project Plans
Prepared by: Caroline Young, Assistant Planner, Planning Division
H:\Planning\Caroline\Discretionary Permits\PCS-06-08-PC Staff Report
ATTACHMENT A
Locator Map
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT . PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: Michael R. Palumbo MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT 148 Fourth Av Proposing CDndominium CDnversion Df existing seven-unit
ADDRESS: . apartment building with seven attached one-car garage and
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: seven open parking spaces.
NORTH No Scale PCS-06-08 Related cases: DRC-D6-39
J:\planning\carlos\locators\pcs060B.cdr 11.28.05
ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-06-08
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TENT A TIVE MAP
TO DIVIDE INTEREST IN .26 ACRES AT 148 FOURTH AVENUE FOR A ONE-LOT
CONDOMINIUM CONTAINING 7 RESIDENTIAL UNITS-MICHAEL PALUMBO.
WHEREAS, on November 21,2005, a duly verified application was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by Michael Palumbo ("Applicant"), requesting
approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to convert 7 apartment units into individually owned
condominiums ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented on Exhibit A and for the general description herein consists of a .26
acres located at 148 Fourth Ave ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
project qualifies for a Class 1 (existing facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe
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 6:00 p.m.,
May 9,2007, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
the hearing was then closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on May 9, 2007, as
set forth in the record of its proceedings made certain findings, as set forth in their recommending
Resolution PCS-06-08, and recommended that the City Council approve the Project based on certain
terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the
Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in that Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy ofthis Resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of May, 2007, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Bryan Felber, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT . PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: Michael R. Palumbo MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT 148 Fourth Av PrDpDsing CDndominium CDnversion Df existing seven-unit
ADDRESS: apartment building with seven attached Dne-car garage and
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: seven open parking spaces.
NORTH No Scale PCS-06-08 Related cases: DRC-06-39
J\planning\carlos\locators\pcs0608cdr 11 2805
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT C
Draft City Council Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO DIVIDE
INTEREST IN .26 ACRES AT 148 FOURTH AVE FOR A ONE-
LOT CONDOMINIUM CONTAINING 7 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
- MICHAEL PALUMBO
I. RECITALS
A. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Tentative Subdivision Map was filed on
November 21, 2005, with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by
Michael Palumbo ("Applicant") requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to
convert 7 apartment units into individually owned condominiums ("Project"); and
B. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Attachment A, copies of which are on file in the Office of
the City Clerk, incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as Chula Vista Tract
No. , Tentative Subdivision Map, and for the purpose of general description herein
consists of .26 acres located at 148 Fourth Ave ("Project Site"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approval and Recommendations
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has received the following discretionary
approvals and recommendations: 1) Zoning Administrative Design Review approval on
April 20, 2007, 2) Planning Commission recommendation of approval of PCS-06-08,
Tentative Subdivision Map for a 7-unit condominium conversion on May 9,2007; and
D. Planning Commission Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
May 9, 2007, and after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony voted to
recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions listed below; and
E. Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the Project's
tentative subdivision map application; and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project and its mailing to the
current tenants residing at 148 Fourth Ave, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
Resolution No. 2006-
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on , in the Council Chambers, 276
Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that it finds, determines
and resolves as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
Resolution PCS-06-08, the minutes, and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on the Project held on May 9, 2007, are incorporated into
the record of this proceeding.
Ill. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project
qualifies for a Class I (existing facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and concurs with the
Environmental Review Coordinator's determination that the Project qualifies for a Class I
(existing facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned in the Resolution for
148 Fourth Ave, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based
on the following:
1. Land Use
It is the City's goal to accommodate diversified housing types. The site is designated
Residential- Medium High, and was previously developed with 7 units on the
property, which is consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the Project, as
conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the adopted General Plan.
2. Circulation
All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision currently exist.
No street improvements are required.
2
Resolution No. 2006-
3. Housing
The Project is consistent with the density prescribed within the General Plan and
provides attached condominium units for individual ownership. The conversion of 7
apartment units to 7 condominium units creates additional opportunities for
residential ownership.
4. Open Space
The Project includes patios, balconies, and landscaped areas.
B. The site is physically suited for residential development and the proposal conforms to all
standards established by the City for such project.
C. The conditions imposed on the grant of permit or the tentative map is approximately
proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created by the proposed
development.
VI. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDOMINUM CONVERSION
REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.56 AND APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL ZONE REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUICIPAL CODE
Pursuant to Chapter 15.56, Conversion of Dwelling Units to Independent Ownership, the
City Council finds that the Project meets the following:
A. Fire Protection: The Project shall comply with the California Fire Code. Applicant
shall, among other things, install smoke detectors to be hardwired and
interconnected with battery backup capabilities in each bedroom and hallway
leading to each bedroom.
B. Uniform Building Code: The Building Department reviewed the "Physical
Elements Report" prepared by Lorber Engineers, and found that the Project will
satisfy the Building Code requirements if the recommended improvements are
constructed or put in place. These requirements are generally described in the
Physical Elements Report.
C. Storage: Section 15.56.020 requires a certain amount of storage for each unit.
There are seven 2-bedroom units that require a minimum 200 cubic feet of storage
for each unit. The Applicant shall provide a hanging storage shelf in the existing
garage, each containing 66 cu. ft. for a total 462 cu. ft. within the garage area. The
additional storage area is provided either underneath the stairs or in the attic. The
combined total area of storage space for each unit varies, but all units exceed the
minimum requirement. The hanging storage shelf in the garage shall be installed
prior to final inspection or occupancy of the condominiums. No additional work is
required to provide the storage within the attic space and the storage area below
the stairway since it currently exists.
3
Resolution No. 2006-
D. Housing Code: The Project is required to conform to Uniform Housing Code
requirements in existence at the time of the approval of the Final Subdivision
Map. The applicant completed two housing inspections on June 2, 2005 and July
6, 2005 where all items were repaired or corrected, except for two items being
deferred to the building permit process. The applicant is required to correct any
deficiencies prior to Final Map approval. The two items included reinstalling the
GFCI duplex receptacles in the garage from the house meter to the unit meter and
each unit shall be served by separate electric meters.
E. Off-street parking: In the R3 zone, a minimum of 2 parking spaces is required for
each two-bedroom unit. The project provides seven I-car garages and seven open
parking spaces.
F. Design Guidelines: The applicant has submitted a Design Review application that
was approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 20, 2007. The Design
Review permit proposed no significant exterior structural changes, but rather
minor design upgrades, includes repairing or replacing fencing, providing new
landscaped area and a new trash enclosure, etc. For interior improvements, each
unit shall be renovated to provide new carpet, tile, doors, windows, hardware,
storage areas, etc. The existing laundry room facilities shall also be removed and
individual laundry facilities shall be provided in each unit.
G. Separate Service Meters: Each unit has individual gas and electric meters. A
Homeowners Association will be responsible for the water and sewer service
utility meters. The Applicant shall provide CC&R's prior to Final Map approval
showing how this will be satisfied.
H. The Applicant submitted a "Physical Elements Report" (See Attachment E) for
review by the City's Building Official. The report concludes that the existing
apartment complex is in overall fair conditions with minor defects, considering
the age of the existing building. The assessment identifies immediate repairs and
short-term intermediate repairs. After reviewing the recommendations, staff
recommends that the report recommendations be incorporated into the remodel
program. Staff has included the report recommendations as conditions of
approval in Attachment C of the draft City Council Resolution.
I. CC&Rs: The Project is conditioned to provide evidence of declarations of
covenants, conditions and restrictions in conjunction with approval of the Final
Map.
4
Resolution No. 2006-
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66451.3 AND 66452.5
Noticing Documentation
Government Code Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 requires notification of a tenant's right to a
public hearing. The City of Chula Vista provided notices to tenants and surrounding property
owners of all required public hearing for the Project, and the Applicant has satisfied the
following noticing requirements at the time of submittal of the Tentative Map, which includes a
60-day "Notice ofIntent to Convert", "Notice to Prospective Tenants ofIntent to Convert", and a
180-day "Notice ofIntent to Convert! Termination of Tenancy".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves Tentative Subdivision
Map, Chula Vista Tract No. , subject to the general and special conditions set forth
below.
VIII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the
Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No.
148 Fourth Ave.
B. Design Consistency
The Applicant shall develop the condominium units in accordance with all applicable City of
Chula Vista Design Guidelines and in accordance with the DRC 06-39 approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
IX. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. The conditions imposed on the Tentative Map approval is approximately proportional both to
nature and extent of impact created by the proposed development. Unless otherwise
specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed by the
Applicant or successor-in-interest to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of the Final
Map, unless otherwise specified:
GENERAL I PLANNING AND BUILDING
I. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained in the Resolution shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the
Applicant as to any or all ofthe Project site.
2. Applicant and his/her successors in interest shall, comply, remain in compliance and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which
is the subject matter of this Tentative Subdivision Map and as recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2007, and DRC 06-39 approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
5
Resolution No. 2006-
3. Applicant shall schedule a meeting with the current tenants to present alternative rental
housing opportunities and assistance in relocation prior to Final Map approval.
4. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit evidence that the
following City of Chula Vista noticing forms have been delivered to the existing and
prospective tenants, or a schedule detailing required future notifications:
a. 10-day notice to all existing tenants of an application of a Public Report - "Form C"
(If submitted to State Dept. of Real Estate prior to Final Map approval).
b. IO-day Notice to all existing tenants of Final Map approval- "Form D".
c. Notice to all prospective tenants of option to purchase/termination of tenancy -
"Form E.
d. 90-day Notice to all existing tenants of option to purchase/termination of tenancy -
"Ponn F".
5. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter into pursuant to the
Resolution shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
DRAINAGE & NPDES
6. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private.
7. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to fully implement NPDES best management
practices ("BMPs") to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the city's storm water
conveyance system, including but not limited to:
a. Installing and using efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; more
specifically:
I. Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation.
11. Adjust irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water
requirements
lll. Using flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to
control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines.
IV. Employing other comparable, equally effective, methods to reduce
irrigation water runoff.
b. Employing integrated best management principles. More specifically, eliminate
and/or reduce the need for pesticide use by implementing Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), including: (I) planting pest-resistant or well-adapted plant
varieties such as native plants; (2) discouraging pests in the landscaping design;
(3) distributing IPM educational materials to homeowners/residents. Minimally,
educational materials must address the following topics: keeping pests out of
buildings and landscaping using barriers, screens, and caulking; physical pest
elimination techniques, such as, weeding, squashing, trapping, washing, or
6
Resolution No. 2006-
pruning out pests; relying on natural enemies to eat pests; and, proper use of
pesticides as a last line of defense.
c. Educate the Public. More specifically, the Homeowners Association, through
Property Management, etc., shall inform residents about the City's non-storm
water and pollutants discharge prohibitions. This goal can be achieved by
distributing informative brochures (some available free from the City of Chula
Vista) to new home buyers and dedicating sections of newsletters to storm water
quality issues, as applicable.
SEWER
8. The on site sewer system shall be private. All sewer laterals shall be privately maintained
from each building and/or condo unit to the City maintained public sewer main.
9. An inspection and maintenance program shall be developed and implemented by the
Applicant to prevent blockage of private sewer lines and overflow of sewage to storm
drain systems. The Applicant shall establish a homeowners association to fund and
oversee a contract for the maintenance of the onsite private sewer system. The frequency
of maintenance of the sewer system shall be contained in the provisions of the Codes,
Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works
shall approve the provisions of the CC&Rs regarding the onsite private sewer system.
STREETS
10. The Applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way along Fourth Avenue to meet the
City's street standards for a "4-Lane Major" street classification. As such, the right-of-
way half width of Fourth Avenue in this area shall be 52'. This dedication shall be shown
on the Final Map.
1 I. The Applicant shall remove and replace the driveway along Flower Street to comply with
ADA pedestrian access route requirements. The work shall be done under a Chula Vista
construction permit using Chula Vista Construction Standard CVCS-I for driveways.
Driveway replacement shall be guaranteed through a bond prior to recordation of the
Final Map.
12. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Project frontage shall be removed and
replaced by the Applicant as required by the City Engineer and to the satisfaction of the
City Inspectors prior to approval of the Final Map.
13. The Applicant and successor Homeowners Association shall maintain comer sight
distance requirements as described in Chula Vista Design Standard CVD- TR07.
7
Resolution No. 2006-
CC&R'S
14. The applicant shall submit CC&R's as approved by the City Attorney to the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building for approval prior to approval of the
Final Map. The CC&R's shall include the following:
. Indemnification of City for private sewer spillage.
. Listing of maintained private facilities.
. The City's right but not the obligation to enforce CC&R's.
. Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless all
homeowners and 100% of the holders of the first mortgage have signed a written
petition.
. Maintenance of all walls, fences, lighting structures, paths, recreational amenities
and structures, sewage facilities, drainage structures and landscaping.
. Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of
pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system.
The CC&Rs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.44 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and
shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map.
15. The approved Homeowners Association (HOA) shall submit its budget for review and
approval by the City Engineer for the maintenance of the private sewage systems. The
budget shall account for cleaning the sewer once a year, with the contingency for
emergenCIes.
EASEMENTS
16. All existing easements and irrevocable offers of dedication shall be shown on the Final
Map. A title report dated within 60 days of submittal of the Final Map shall be submitted
together with backing documents for all existing public utility easements and offers of
dedication. The applicant shall submit evidence of noticing to all existing public utility
easement holders within the Project boundaries as required by the Section 66436 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
AGREEMENTS
17. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement for the following;
a. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its
agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by
the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any
approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision
pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly
notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
8
Resolution No. 2006-
b. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase
flow of drainage resulting from this Project.
c. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable
Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit
to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in
compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in
further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may
have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
MISCELLANEOUS
18. The final map shall tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI
(NAD '83).
19. The Applicant shall submit copies of the Final Map in a digital format such as (DXF)
graphic file prior to approval of the Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD)
copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the
information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on
3 Yz HD floppy disk prior to the approval ofthe Final Map.
20. The Applicant shall submit a conformed copy of a recorded tax certificate covering the
Project site prior to approval of the Final Map.
21. The Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of
compliance with all tenant noticing requirements per Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision
Map Act prior to approval of the Final Map.
B. The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied prior to Building Permit approval
unless otherwise noted:
22. The applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit for the storage, trash enclosure,
exterior and interior remodel of each condominium unit, and items listed in the "Physical
Elements Report".
23. The Project building permit submittal plans shall include all immediate recommended
items to be replaced/repaired as stated in the "Physical Elements Report", prepared by
Lorber Engineers, and shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. The following list
of improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of the units:
. Trim roots back and install root barriers to eliminate potential foundation damage
. Remove or treat termite activity in the attics, exterior architectural features, (e.g.
wood trim, etc.), electrical meter cabinets, and wooden fence.
. Replace al1 damaged garage door air vents
. Redirect downspout termination
9
Resolution No. 2006-
~--
. Repair all decks to prevent leaks to lower floors.
. Provide a new roof and remove stains on the roof sheathing around the skylights,
seal all leaks, and assess the ventilation when you re-roof.
. Replace all plumbing fixtures
. Replace/repair distribution piping that might of caused past leaks in the garages
and bathrooms.
. Install pipe bollards to protect water heaters
. Replace all existing water heaters that are 7 or more years old.
. Replace the stainless steel flexible connectors on the PIT valve drain piping with
hard drawn metal.
. Replace all heating/air-conditioning units if older than 10 years.
. Install GFCI protected receptacles in the garage and kitchen areas.
. Repair the spot damage to the fire resistive assembly walls that separate the
various attic spaces and to the interior drywall at various locations.
. Verify and remove all asbestos that may be in the acoustic spray on the ceiling.
. Replace missing closet light diffusers at various locations and install diffusers for
safety.
. Verify that ceiling fans are installed properly.
. Repair spot damage on several screens/frames.
. For Apartment 1, repair water leakage from the tub/shower enclosure, replace
wax ring and remount the toilet, repair heavy discoloration/staining of the
tub/shower fiberglass enclosure and loose water control handles.
. For Apartment 2, repair/replace any plumbing fixture overflow or toilet leak in
the downstairs hall bathroom. Replace the damaged tub/shower water control
handle and mount correctly to the wall.
. For Apartment 3, install a smoke detector at the entry to the sleeping area. Repair
water damage to base board and discoloration of the wall, and mold-like
accumulation on the tub shower, and the damaged/cracked toilet pedestal.
. For Apartment 4, treat the termite damage to the exterior deck door.
. Determine scope of any mold concerns due to high moisture conditions, and
remove mold as required.
. Install electronic overhead door openers for all garage doors.
24. The Project building permit submittal plans shall include all recommended items to be
repaired according to the housing inspections, which included reinstalling the GFCI
duplex receptacles in the garage from the house meter to the unit meter and to have each
unit served by separate electric meters.
25. The Project's exterior and interior upgrades for the site shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved DRC-06-39 Design Review permit.
26. The Applicant shall install hanging storage shelf in the existing garage, each containing
66 cu. ft. for a total 462 cu. ft. within the garage area prior to final inspection or
occupancy of the condominiums. No additional work is required to provide the storage
within the attic space and the storage area below the stairway.
10
Resolution No. 2006-
27. The Project shall comply with requirements of the approved "Recycling and Solid Waste
Management Plan" to the satisfaction of the City's Conservation Coordinator. The Plan
shall demonstrate those steps the Applicant will take to comply with Municipal Code,
including but not limited to Sections 8.2 (Solid Waste and Litter) and 8.25 (Recycling),
and meet the State mandate to reduce or divert at least 50 percent of the waste generated
by all residential, commercial and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract
with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the
Project. The Plan shall incorporate any trash enclosure re-design required for compliance
with the City's NPDES permit.
28. The Project building permit plans shall demonstrate that walls and ceilings meeting the
current Uniform Building Code standards regarding fire and sound attenuation have been
installed between airspaces of the condominium units, to the satisfaction of the City
Building Official and Director of Planning and Building. If the walls and ceiling do not
meet said standards, then the walls and ceiling shall be modified to conform to the
Uniform Building Code.
29. The Project building permit plans shall comply with all requirements of the City ofChula
Vista Fire Department and the California Fire Code.
X. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals granted in the resolution, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building
permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals granted in the resolution, institute and prosecute litigation to compel
their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant
shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the
City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City
within a reasonable and diligent time frame.
XI.INV ALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition, and that in the event that
anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Resolution shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
James D. Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
H:\Planning\Caroline\Discretionary Permits\PCS-06-08-CC Reso
II
ATTACHMENT D
Zoning Administrator Design Review Notice of Decision
~\r?-
:-~-:
--
---
---
Zoning Administrator
CI1Y OF
CHULA VISTA
NOTICE OF DECISION
On DRC-06-39, 148 Fourth Ave
7-Unit Condominium Conversion
Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Administrator has considered Design Review Application
DRC-06-39, to allow the conversion of an existing 7-unit apartment complex to a 7-unit
condominium complex 10cated at 148 Fourth Ave in the Apartment Residential (R3) Zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a
Class I categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
The Zoning Administrator, undcr the provisions of Section 19.14.582 (I) of the Chu1a Vista
Municipal Code, has conditionally approved said request based upon the fol1owing findings of
fact:
1. That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of the
R-3 Zone.
The complex consists of one 2-story rectangular building containing a total of seven 2-
bedroom units. The complex provides seven I-car garages, seven open parking spaces, and
1andscaped areas. The complex was constmcted in 1987 after it was approved by the Design
Review Committee. No significant exterior structural changes arc proposed. The site
provides greater setbacks and additional open space and storage areas then what is required.
The site meets the minimum parking requirement and the height of the building is below the
maximum height limit. Therefore. the project is consistent with the development regulations
for the R-3 zone including setbacks, height, open space, and parking.
2. The design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design :Vlanual and Landscape
Manual.
The proposal does not call for significant exterior changes. Some minor design upgrades are
proposed, which include repairing or replacing fencing. providing new landscaped area, and
a new trash enclosure. For interior improvements, each unit will be renovated to provide new
carpet, tile, doors. windows. hardware. and storage areas. The existing laundry room facilities
would also be removed and individual laundry facilities would be provided in each unit. The
project also includes common open space and private balconies and patios. The project, as
proposed satisfies the recommendations of the Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
Approval of DRC-06-39 is conditioned upon the following:
I. Prior to the issuance of any permits for improvements or modifications, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
A. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by making a true copy
of this Notice of Decision and signing both this original notice and the copy on the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement
same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the
Planning Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of this document prior to
submittal for building permits to the Planning Department shall indicate the property
owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building
permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of property owner
Date
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
B. This Design Review approval is subject to the approval and conditions set forth in the
Tentative Map application, PCS-06-08, which shall be approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
C. Building pern1its are required for the proposed improvements to the site. The building
pern1it shall not be submitted until after the PSC-06-08 approval has been obtained.
D. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all new wall and building surfaces.
This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project
shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
regarding graffiti control.
II. Prior to the final inspection or occupancy of the condominium building, the following
requirements shall be satisfied:
A. The site shall be modified in accordance with the approved plans, which include site plan,
floor plan, elevation plan, and landscape plans dated March 27, 2007 on file in the
Planning Division, the conditions contained herein and Title 19.
B. Install the proposed landscape as specified on the plans, and continue to maintain the
landscaping in a manner that complies the City Design ,,1anua] and Landscape Manual,
and the previously approved landscape plan.
APPROVED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of April 2007.
/1
LH:CY
ATTACHMENT E
Proposed Vpgrades
PROPOSED UPGRADES
TH
1484 Avenue
Vision Condominums
The developer intends to upgrade major and minor components of the property, for the
purposes of providing quality and affordable residential condominium units. The
inspector's findings will be addressed with new and/or upgraded materials that meet or
exceed current building codes. The developer will employ a licensed building contractor
to perform or oversee the upgrades and improvements contained herein. Where permits
are required the contractor will make the necessary application to the City of Chula Vista.
2.0 Cost Allocations for Improvements
The issues will be addressed in the natural order of the inspection report, referenced by
the paragraph number. See table 1.1 for quick reference to planned improvements. The
rep<iirs or improvement will be addressed in the following manner; prior to occupancy of
units (POU). short term and intermediate repairs to be performed between 1 and 5 years
(STIR), and proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO).
Wall Doors and Trim:
Trump Pest Control estimates $6,000 for Tenting and Wood trim replacement
Performed prior to occupancy of units (POD)
Fencing & Gates:
Estimated cost to replace $5,000
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Gutters and Downspouts:
Estimated cost to upgrade $700.00
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Roof Covering:
Approximate Cost to replace $25,000
Proposed short term and intermediate repairs to be performed between I and 5 years
(STIR) rC4- U&-c!'6
Water Heaters:
Estimated cost to replace $1,400
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
(ljij,/ 2 1 200-
Smoke detectors in 14 bedrooms
Estimated cost to install $114.00
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
P\lC- v(v - ')C(
PROPOSED UPGRADES
- I -
Acoustic ceilings will be removed and replaced
Approximate Cost to remove and replace $6,000.00
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Conunon Laundry Area:
The common laundry area will be removed, an under the counter unit will be installed in
each unit.
Approximate Cost $7,000
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Toilets:
All toilets will be replaced with most current low flow toilets
Approximate Cost $900.00
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Cabinets:
All cabinets will be refurbished
_Approximate Cost $2,800
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Appliances:
Dishwashers, stove and ovens will be replaced
Approximate Cost $5,600
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PI PO)
3.0 Other Planned Improvements:
Storage:
200 cubic area storage units will be installed in each garage
Approximate Cost $5,600
Counter Tops "Kitchens and Bathrooms"
Kitchens and Baths counter tops will be replaced
Approximate Cost $2,500
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Flooring:
All units will be carpeted and tiled with new materials
Approximate Cost $7,700
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Wall Coverings;
All units will be freshly painted:
Approximate Cost $5,600
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
PROPOSED UPGRADES
- 2 -
Automatic Garage Door Openers:
Approximate Cost $1,200
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO)
Exterior Paint:
Complete Exterior Paint
Approximate Cost $10,000
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PI PO)
Light Fixtures:
Interior and Exterior
Approximate Cost $1,500
Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PI PO)
PROPOSED UPGRADES
- 3 -
Table 1.1
Improvement Cost Analysis
NenEUt Par.tgr..p. ilit 'linE
fu;t Tmting 4.01 ~cm KU
Fmcing&Gtes 4.05 $5,cm PIPO
GItttr.; ax! D:Mrnp;W 4.07 $7(X] PIID
RoofOM:ring 5.0: $25,<XX: SIIR
WIler H::aters 6.Oi $1,40] PIID
Snrl<e~ 9.0: $114 PIPO
Ceiling; 9.0: ~<XX: PIPO
LIDrxIry 9.02 5>7,txXJ . PIID
Toilcts 9.02 $<X( PIPO
Cabinets 9.02 $2,10: PIPO
~ 9.02 $5,ro: PIPO
St~ $4,<XX: PIPO
Co.n1tcr Tcp; $22,:<< PIPO
F10cring 5>7,700 PIID
Will. 0Mring; $5,~ PIPO
GJrnge IhrQxnels $l~ PIPO
Exteria' Pdint $lo,cm PIPO
~ FIXture; $1,500 PIPO
T ctal $113,914
.:. (POU) Prior to occupancy
.:. (STIR) Short term and intermediate repairs to be performed between 1 and 5 years
.:. (PIPO) Proposed improvements prior to occupancy of unit (PIPO).
PROPOSED UPGRADES
4
ATTACHMENT F
Physical Elements Report - "Executive Summary"
Page 3 October 20, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A property condition assessment was performed by Lorber Engineers on the Vision
Condominium Apartments property located at 148 Fourth Avenue in Chula Vista,
California (Subject Property). The assessment was conducted on October 4, 2005.The
Subject Property consists of a rectangular shaped parcel of land situated at the west side
of Fourth Avenue, approximately one mile east of the San Diego Freeway (1-5). The
property is improved with one, 2-story, multifamily building containing a total of
approximately 5,980 net rentable square feet and a total of seven apartment units. In
addition, the property contains a small laundry room.
General Description
The Subject Property consists of one wood framed structure with limited landscaped
areas along Fourth Avenue and at the perimeter of the buildings. According to a City of
Chula Vista Building Department representative, there does not appear to be any reported
. building code violations at the Property. In addition, the developer researched the City of
Chula Vista Building Department file for the original building pennit, Certificate of
Occupancy and any outstanding violations. No violations were doted in the Building
Department file.
. FIRE
BillLDlNG NO STORIES/ SPRINKLERS
BUILDING AREA BUILDING I YES I NO I
(SQUARE FEET)' HEIGHT
One, 2-story, apartment 5,980 NRA 2-story /27' 6" X
building
Seven attached single 2-story / 27' 6" X
car garages
* Gross floor area (GFA; net rentable area (NRA)
UNIT MIX
Size Number of Units SF Area (sF)
2 Bedroom/2.5 Bath I 900
2 Bedroom/I Bath 6 830
The Subject Property is zoned "R-3", multi-family residential district by the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department. The subject improvements appear to be developed in
accordance with the designated zoning.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
Page 4 October 20, 2005
1.00 INTRODUCTION
This report is an opinion about the condition of the major systems of this property based
on visual evidence available during a diligent inspection of accessible areas. We are
concerned with identifying major deficiencies, which in our opinion, are ones that would
cost approximately $500.00 or more to correct. We did not remove surface materials,
move fumiture or undertake destructive testing as part of this inspection. This report is
not an exhaustive technical evaluation, which would cost much more.
No property is in perfect condition and all will have items deserving attention. Often
these are matters of personal preference. We recommend that you keep in mind the
following as you read this report: age of the structure, level of use, maintenance history,
climatic exposure, skill and workmanship of the builder which always varies, and
prevailing building codes and practices.
All inspected items are examined for serviceability. The term "serviceable" is intended to
-mean that no significant abnormalities are noted and the item is generally functioning as
intended. Some item can be deemed serviceable and yet have some minor deficiency.
2.00 DESCRIPTION
This property includes 7 apartments and 7 attached garages with mostly stucco on the
exterior and a composition shingle roof surfacing.
The structure appears to be constructed on a nearly level building pad on a concrete slab
foundation. The structure is reportedly about 20 years old and is assumed to face east for
purposes of this report.
3.00 STRUCTURAL
3.01 General - Our evaluation of the structure is derived from many indirect inspection
observations. Since we rarely see the wall framing, we look for cracks and bulges in the
finish of the walls to determine condition. It is possible that there are shortcomings with
the structure of this complex that will not be knowable from a visual inspection.
Engineering/design review of structure is beyond scope of inspection. Inspecting for
damage, deterioration, unconventional construction etc.
As an advisory, we did not have access to any soils report, structural or grading plans, did
not do any destructive testing. Having more comprehensive infonnation could reinforce
our opinion or, on the other hand, could potentially change it.
3.02 Specific Conditions - We noted the following:
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
.-"-
Page 5 October 20, 2005
_ Most of the foundation and structural framing are covered by finishes and not visible for
inspection.
- We inspected the floors, wall and ceiling surfaces, door casings and the fit of the doors
and windows for any indication that there is movement ongoing with respect to the
foundation. The condition of surfaces and function of architectural features appear to be
within an acceptable range and suggest that the structure is intact and perfonning as
intended.
- There are some variations in the upper floor finishes which is not uncommon for wood
framed structures and again appear to be in an acceptable range.
- Invasive roots appear to encroach the foundation at a couple locations. We recommend
keeping roots trimmed back to eliminate the potential for foundation damage.
- Much of the prefabricated truss wood roof framing was inspected by entering the attics
-via the various access panels - one located in each upper level apartment. The attic
insulation partially obscured our view of some framing members.
There is no indication of damage (non-tennite) or deterioration with respect to the visible
framing. Where there is no attic, the finishes on the ceilings did not indicate any reason
for structural concem.
- The tennite frass in the attics indicate widespread tennite activity. We recommend that
you consult your structural pest control inspection report for further guidance.
4.00 EXTERIOR
4.01 Walls, Doors & Trim - The exterior walls of this property are covered with stucco
and some horizontal wood siding. We noted the following conditions:
_ The stucco was at least spot painted sometime in past. If so, sealing and painting of
surfaces can obscure stains, cracks etc. As advisory, painted stucco requires more
maintenance than integral coloring.
- There is a pattem of stucco staining at the walls surrounding the exterior and on the
under side of the decks. The definitive cause of the staining is unknown. Staining on the
underside could reflect known past leaking of some decks.
_ Discoloration of stucco walls, e,g, on the south side, could be caused by water running
off of the roof.
- There is widespread lots tennite frass accumulation on exterior architectural features,
e.g., wood trim etc. Also, there is heavy spot damage to wood trim components e.g. at the
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
Page 6 October 20, 2005
electrical meter cabinets. We recommend consulting your structural pest control
contractor for further guidance.
- There is minor, spot damage to stucco at various locations.
_ A few garage door combustion air vents are impact damaged
4.02 DRAINAGE & GRADING - WHILE ANY DRAINAGE COMMENTARY IS
INTENDED TO IDENTIFY CONDITIONS THAT MAYBE LESS THAN IDEAL,
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A GIVEN POOR DRAINAGE STRATEGY MAY NOT
MANIFEST ITSELF IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. WE OFFER THE
FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
_ The drainage pattems visually appear relatively flat or inconsistent and do not appear to
have a definitive drain pattem that will carry surface water to an appropriate location.
The site drainage was not actually water tested.
_ Planting beds around property will tend to trap surface water; no drains visible.
Vegetation or mulch may have obscured some installed drains.
_ Some downspouts discharge into planting beds. As no drains were visible in the
planting beds, we recommend redirecting downspout termination.
_ While not inspected per se, at least, I irrigation system valve box cover is damaged,
e.g., on the south side. The damage could present a tripping hazard.
We have enclosed a publication by the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of
Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors entitled "Wet Weather Maintenance of Structure
Site" which provides helpful advise about control of surface water.
4.03 Walkways/Hardscapes - Generally appear to be in serviceable condition. There are
some minor miscellaneous cracks. At least, a couple spots appear to be slightly uplifted
from tree root intrusion. Any uplift conditions can present a tripping hazard.
4.04 DECKS/BALCONIES - WE NOTED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
General (occurs at all/most):
_ Our evaluation is limited to visual non-destructive testing. We did not water test the
decklba1cony surfaces for proper drainage or leaks. We do not know if they will leak and
we make no warranty of their condition. We did not test deck drain scuppers.
_ AGAIN, THE STAINING ON THE UNDERSIDE OF SOME DECKS CAN
INDICATE LEAKING, AT LEAST, IN THE PAST. AN ELECTRONIC MOISTURE
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
--
Page 7 October 20, 2005
DETECTOR INDICATES A NORMAL LEVEL OF MOISTURE PRESENT AT THIS
TIME. RECOMMEND MONITORING FOR SIGNS OF FURTHER LEAKAGE.
- All features generally appear to be in serviceable condition.
4.05 Fencing & Gates - Only representative sections of the perimeter fencing was
inspected. Some fencing is obscured by heavy vegetation and, therefore, not inspected.
We noted the following conditions:
_ Much of the wooden fence is in contact with the soil, which can lead to rot.
_ There are multiple spots ofrot and termite damage to the wood fencing.
4.06 STEPS/LANDINGS - APPEAR TO BE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION.
SOME MINOR, MISCELLANEOUS CRACKS WERE NOTED.
-4.07 Gutters & Downspouts - We noted the following conditions:
_ A partial gutter and downspout system installed. Those gutters and downspouts that are
present generally appear to be serviceable. A full system at all eaves is always
recommended to help with site drainage. We did not water test the system.
_ Again, a few of downspouts discharge on ground adjacent to the structure; redirect.
4.08 Miscellaneous Exterior - The irrigation system is not included in the inspection &
therefore, was not tested.
5.00 ROOFING
5.01 General - The roof is a system that must work well together to provide weather
protection for the structure. The major elements in this system include the roofing or roof
covering, the underlayment, flashing, sheathing, and the roof framing. We have not
conducted any water tests of this roof and do not know if it will leak, and we make no
warranty of its condition. Our evaluation is limited to visual non-destructive testing. A
complete roof inspection would require destructive testing which is not included in our
standard inspection.
5.02 Roof Covering: The roofing was examined by walking on the surfaces. A
composition shingle roof surfacing is installed. We noted the following conditions:
GENERAL
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
---"---
Page 8 October 20, 2005
Composition shingle coverings have about a 20 yr service life when new. Assuming that
the roofing is the original installed, it is nominally nearing the end of its expected service
life. General conditions also indicate that it will need to be replaced "on schedule".
We recommend contacting independent roofer if you desire further guidance. Roofer
should conduct overall inspection of roofing.
Specific:
_ Stains on the roof sheathing around skylights, e.g., at the south exterior entry skylight,
accessible via the apartment #4 attic, and the apartment 6 attic skylight indicate leaks.
_ Most ridge and hip shingles are highly deteriorated and need to be replaced. Some
shingles have deteriorated to the point where holes have appeared in the roof moisture
barrier which will allow water to leak into the attics.
_ Thcre is tiberglass showing around frayed shingle edges which indicatcs advancing
shingle age.
_ Passive roof ventilation appears less than currently required for roof framing.
Recommend ventilation assessment when you next re-roof.
_ No step and counter flashing is visible at lower level entry door roof popouts. Ensure
that the proper flashing is installed with the next roofreplacement.
_ Some of the 2nd roof flashings are cracked open and need to be sealed.
- There is minor cracks/crazing in a few skylights.
6.00 PLUMBING
6.01 General - The property is served by public water and sewer services.
When not used, plumbing fixtures can deteriorate; I test may not reveal problems.
6.02 Main Water Shut-Off - The main water service point, shut-off valve and any
pressure regulator were not located.
6.03 Water Pressure - There was no place to take water pressure with disconnecting
appliances. We will not disconnect an appliance because we could cause some
damage/leaks. The maximum recommended water pressure in a structure is 80 psi and the
minimum is 30 psi.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
Page 9 October 20, 2005
6.04 Supply Lines - We noted the following conditions:
Visible current water supply lines appear to be made of copper pipe, however, most of
the piping is not visible as it is covered by wall finishes. The original polybutylene piping
was replaced w/ copper piping; a permit was required for this work.
There is evidence of, at least, past leaks, e.g., in some garages and some bathrooms. We
have no way of knowing if any of these leaks were related to the distribution piping.
6.05 Waste Lines - All visible waste lines appear to be made of ABS plastic piping. All
visible piping appears to be in serviceable condition.
6.06 Gas System - The gas meter locations are near the exterior, north side of the
structure. They appear to be in serviceable condition.
6.07 Water Heater - Each apartment is served by a dedicated water heater located in the
~enant associated garage. Also, there is a water heater located in the common area laundry
room. We noted the following conditions:
GENERAL (OCCURS AT ALUMOST):
- Water heater strapping meets minimum requirements to help prevent overturning.
- None of the accessible water heaters appear to be the original. Technically, permits
were required when the water heaters were replaced.
- As advisory, no pipe bollan\s arc installed to protect heatcrs as elllTent1y required.
- Heaters nominally have about a 7-10 yr service life. Heaters in this age range or older
could t"i1 at anytime.
_ Some PiT valve drain piping includes stainless steel flexible connectors; only hard
drawn metal is allowcc!.
COMMON LAUNDRY ROOM WATER HEATER:
- A I year old, 30 gallon, gas-fired heater is installed.
GARA.GE WATER HEATERS:
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
---
Page to October 20, 2005
Apartment #1:
- The water heater was inaccessible; the garage overhead door was locked
Apartment #2:
- A 9 year old, 30 gallon, gas-fired heater is installed; could fail at anytime.
- Some PIT piping is composed for flexible connector.
Apartment #3:
- The water heater was inaccessible; blocked by storage.
Apartment #4:
_- The water heater was inaccessible; the garage overhead door was locked
Apartment #5:
- The water heater was inaccessible; the garage overhead door was locked
Apartment #6:
- A to year old, 30 gallon, gas-fired heater is installed; cou1d fail at anytime.
- Some PIT piping is composed for flexible connector.
Apartment #7:
- A 3 year old, 30 gallon, gas-fired heater is installed.
6.08 Special Features -As an advisory, no fire sprinkler system is installed
7.00 HEATING
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
--
-".',_~
Page II October 20, 2005
7.01 Systems:
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
- Wall mounted electric heating and air conditioning package units are installed in each
apartment.
_ Heating/air conditioning packages generally have an expected life of about 20 yrs;
current ages are unknown.
SPECIFIC:
Apartment #1:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
-Apartment #2:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
Apartment #3:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
Apartment #4:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
Apartment #5:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
Apartment #6:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
Apartment #7:
- Appears to be working satisfactorily.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
-..----------..-
Page 12 October 20, 2005
8.00 ELECTRICAL
8.01 General - While certain types of deficiencies are readily discemible, not all
conditions that can effect electrical system reliability and safety can be identified during a
visual inspection.
The purpose of a GFCI is to provide protection against shock hazards. It will open or
"trip" on slight imbalances in current flow, thus protecting you. The GFCI operates as
other circuit breakers, should it "trip," simply reset it for continuing operation.
Periodically, you should test the GFCl for proper operation. By pushing the test button,
the GFCI should trip to the "OFF" position.
8.02 General Conditions (applies to most or all):
_ The meters and main disconnects are located in the exterior northwest corner cabinet.
An electrical sub-panel is located in each apartment. Each panel appears to provide 90
-amperes of power.
8.02 Specific Conditions:
_ There are numerous switch/outlet covers missing at varIOUS locations. Covers are
needed for fire safety.
_ No GFCI protected receptacles were found in the garage and in the kitchens. GFCI's are
now required at all exterior, bathroom and kitchen countertop receptacles and garage
convenience receptacles.
- The following lighting was not/could not be tested:
. Any sensorltimer controlled light fixtures.
9.00 INTERIOR
9.01 General - Identifying the presence of any molds, toxic or otherwise, algae, spores
etc., is beyond the scope of the inspection. Testing would be required to rule out presence
of any environmental hazards. If there is any concern on your part about indoor air
quality, we recommend contacting a qualified specialty contractor for further guidance.
9.02 General Conditions (applies to all or most):
- No detecturs installcd in the b~dro()ms as required \v/ newer construction.
_ There is spot damage to the fire resistive assemblies (walls) that separate the various
attic spaces.
PHYlCAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
_.._---~--~~
Page 13 October 20, 2005
- The ceilings are c{)v~rcd w"ith acoustic spray. Acoustic spray instal1cd up to about 19X2
can have an asbestos component. Positive identification of asbestos requires a laboratory
test.
- There unfaced fiberglass insulation installed in the attics. There is no way for us to
detennine the "R" value.
- There is spot damage to the interior drywall at various locations
- A few closet light diffusers are missing at various locations; diffusers are needed for
safety .
- Cannot verify that ceiling fans arc installed with adeqllate support.
- There are several screens/frames that show spot damage.
9.03 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
Apartment #1:
_ There are apparent stains on the ceiling of the front bedroom. Again, could be related to
known past deck leaks.
- One of the bedroom windows is damaged/cracked.
Apartment #2:
- Guardrail openings exceed the 4 " spacing allo\vcd on current construction.
Apartment #3:
- There are a few, minor front entry tile cracks
- The smoke detector at the entry to the sleeping area is missing
Apartment #4:
- The front entry tile grout shows spot deterioration.
- There is rotltennite damage to exterior deck door components.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
Page 14 October 20, 2005
- The space between the exterior deck door thresholds & landings is greater than allowed.
The distance cannot be greater than I inch when the door opens outward. Also, the door
weather stripping damaged.
Apartment #5:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #6:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #7:
- No additional comments.
COMMON LAUNDRY ROOM:
- Testing ortne appliances is nor included in the inspection.
- No catch pan is installed under washer; any drain was not visible/not tested. Omission
can lead to flooding if there is an overflowlhose break.
- \-Vater supply connector:; serving cJotnes washer are the original rubber ones. As these
eventually fail, rcc. replacing Wi llexible, stainless steel connectors.
- The combustion air openings in the closet doors appear too small. They nominally do
not appear to provide the required amount of needed combustion air.
10.00 KITCHEN & APPLIANCES
10.01 General - We tested the appliances listed below to see if they work. Our "test" is
not an evaluation of performance but is only to verity that they "work". It is possible that
timers may be defective, garbage disposals may be ineffective, thermostats may be out of
calibration, and the appliance can still "pass" our abbreviated test. Appliances can fail at
any time without warning. There are insurance policies available to you that may provide
some protection. Your agent can supply information on this subject. All comments
pertain to the main kitchen unless otherwise specified.
10.02 General Conditions:
Each apartment kitchen is typically equipped with an electric range, dishwasher, garbage
disposal, and microwave
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
Page 15 October 20, 2005
We did not operationally test the appliances.
There are a few miscellaneous cabinet/casework discrepancies, e.g., cabinet doors rub
and missing hardware etc.
10.03 Specific Conditions:
Apartment #1:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #2:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #3:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #4:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #5:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #6:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #7:
- No additional comments.
11.00 BATHROOMS
11.01 General - The serviceability of the major components like sinks, showers, tubs,
toilets, visible plumbing, exhaust fans, cabinetry, mirrors, windows, electrical outlets and
light fixtures or any other installed features, unless otherwise noted, are inspected.
Common minor deficiencies, such as deteriorated tile caulking or grouting are may not be
called out.
When not used, plumbing fixtures can deteriorate; I test may not reveal problems.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
-----" .---
Page 16 October 20, 2005
11.02 General Conditions (applies to all/most):
- Fiberglass tub/shower enclosures are installed in each bathroom.
- Most sink drain plugs are missing
_ With any chronic high moisture conditions, the probability of subsurface
rot/deterioration and/or fungi growth (toxic mold, algae, mildew etc.) is high. Further
evaluation to detennine scope of any mold concerns would be have to be conducted by a
qualified, licensed industrial hygienist.
Apartment #1:
_ There is an elevated moisture reading at lower left-hand side of the tub shower
enclosure. While not definitive, water appears to be leaking from the tub/shower
.enclosure. The exact cause/mechanism is unknown.
- The toilet is loosely mounted to the floor; replace wax ring & remount.
- There is heavy discoloration/staining of the tub/shower fiberglass enclosure.
- Tub/shower mono water control handles is loose on wall.
Apartment #2:
Downstairs Hall Bathroom:
_ There is discolored sheet vinyl flooring and stains along lower wall and baseboard.
There is a musty odor, mold-like accumulation and elevated moisture reading in the
storage closet adjacent to the bathroom. While not definitive, the conditions likely reflect
a plumbing fixture overflow or toilet leak. Recommend that a qualified plumber
investigate the conditions further. Recommend consulting a licensed industrial hygienist
concerning any needed water damage mitigation.
_ There are some paint blisters on ceiling. The exact cause is not known; various
possibilities. Could be evidence of the past leak from plumbing or the above apartment
bathroom.
Upstairs Hall Bathroom:
- The tub/shower water control handle is damaged; needs to be replaced. Also, the water
control handles is loose on the wall.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
--
---
Page 17 October 20, 2005
- The toilet is loosely mountcd to the ]]oor; replace wax ring & remount.
Apartment #3:
- Apparent water damage to base board along the lower wall to the lower, left-and side of
the shower. Also, there is discoloration of the wall, mold-like accumulation at the mid-
height, left-hand side of the tub shower. The exact causes are unknown; various
possibilities.
- The toilet pedestal is damaged/cracked.
Apartment #4:
- The toilet is loosely mounted to the Iloor; replace wax ring & remount.
Apartment #5:
- The toilet is loosely mounted to the Hoor; replace \'vax ring & remount.
Apartment #6:
- The toilet is loosely mounted to the l1oor; replace wax ring & remount.
Apartment #7:
- No additional comments.
12.00 GARAGE
12.01 General Conditions (applies to most/all):
- Many surfaces are obscured by storage materials, equipment etc.
- As an advisory, no electronic overhead door openers are installed.
- There is spot damage to the interior drywall at various locations.
12.02 Specific Conditions:
Apartment #1:
- The garage door was padlocked and, therefore, the garage interior could not be
inspected.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
---"._----
Page 18 October 20, 2005
Apartment #2:
- Again, there are stains on ceiling around water heater supply piping.
Apartment #3:
- Again, there are stains on ceiling around water heater supply piping.
Apartment #4:
_ The garage door was padlocked and, therefore, the garage interior could not be
inspected.
Apartment #5:
_ The garage door was padlocked and, therefore, the garage interior could not be
inspected.
Apartment #6:
- No additional comments.
Apartment #7:
- No additional comments.
14.00 LIMITATIONS OF SCOPE
This evaluation is not a geological inspection of the site. No subsurface investigation is
made and this inspection is not what might be referred to as a "soils report". We can
make no determination of the prior grading activity that mayor may not have occurred
without more extensive research of public records or subsurface investigation. If you
desire a geotechnical evaluation, we can provide these services at an added fee.
Weare not providing a structural pest control inspection_ We understand that you will be
provided with a separate inspection report that will address the presence or absence of
wood-destroying organisms.
Owning any building involves some risk and no property is perfect. Even the most
comprehensive inspection cannot be expected to reveal every condition you may consider
important to your ownership. Further, without disassembling the building, not everything
can be known. This report is not a structure warranty, is not to be considered a
guarantee of condition and is not an insurance policy of any kind.
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
--
Page 19 October 20, 2005
While some references to hazardous materials and code compliance may be made, our
report is not a complete investigation for code compliance, toxic wastes in the building
or adjacent soils, hazardous materials, or public records affecting this property. Such an
investigation would be much more costly and is beyond the scope of this inspection.
15.00 CONCLUSION
The main objective of the inspection is to identify the overall condition of the
property/systems and areas of concern and not necessarily to identify every individual
defect.
Based on the visual inspection the types of discrepancies are typical for a property of this
age, use and type of construction.
It is possible that with higher level (specialty) inspections, a wider range of deficiencies
may be identified. Some may only be discoverable with destructive testing.
If you have any questions about this report or inspection, please feel free to call us for
clarification.
End of Report
PHYICAL ELEMENTS REPORT
LORBOR ENGINEERS
--_...~--
ATTACHMENT G
Noticing Documentation
CONDOMfillWM CONVERSIONS- FORM A
60-DAY
NOTICE TO EXISTING TENANT
OF INTENT TO CONVERT
To the occupant(s) of: .
,
148 4tl' Avenue
( address)
(apartment #)
~.
The'owner(s) oftbis building, at 148 4th Avenue (address), plans to file a
Design Review and TentativeJParcel Map application with the City ofChula Vista to convert this building
to a condominium project. You shall be given notice of each hearing for which notice is required pursuant
to Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 of the Government Code, and you have the right to appear and the right
to be heard at any such hearing. The owner or owner's agent shall provide a total of five (5) different
notices throughout the approval process to each tenant prior to the tenant vacating the premises due to the
conversion. The City of Chula Vista will notify each tenant of all three (3) public hearings
(Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council) for the proj ect, approval.
/?/{// /;;.j/
/Ii v/"'f /" ,"'"
(signature of owner or owner's agent)
06/06/2005
(date)
"-
(Section 66427.1(a) & 66452.9 of the Government Code)
ullO~~I.I.i.~-'~'~'~~
ru itl-'-'~r:::, p:'/l~'!i . .fi;;-,~~~" ..o,~".~., .,' ,,:...iiiDJiI
~ IR=CI,:, "Co'.. ,,,,,,,,,,,"';,'''''' i""""",,, ._"'.:_~
:r
o
o
o
Po::;taga , yo
C~rtil1ed Fee 3.)C'
P::Jstmark
Re!lJm Reciepl F~e o ~ Here
(Endorsement Required) d' 7 ) (!re
Restri~ed Deliver! Fee
(E:'1!1or:J.ement Re(1U1red)
Total Postage & Fees $ ~ '4 )/
J
o
..!J
rl
rl
=
o
~ s'1J\ A I<. R \505 A I ( I R \ ( ......___.______....______....___
~;~~~;.~~;~~~i~~~~~~~i~)~~A~~~~~~~!2..?___....______.+-+----.----
ce~'Jt:"A \L I STA C A V) I 0; I ()
t:.'I,'
"""~ ... . ."., R' ...
rl
rl
o
fT1
- -, r.'
=- - =)
J '111 '-"--" .. ~ ,
fT1 t-I;;Orr.'~I\'
"" .
rl
..!J
o
o
o
Postage , ' '(0 I
C2rti!iedFee o "0
).) Pcstmar'<<
RetumRecieptFee J ., / i~{
(Endorsement Aequirer:l) IS
Restri~ed OeliverjFee
(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees $ dC)
o
..!J
rl
rl
:r
o
D semra, }' " -6
f'- A./:{i2~E _3U!lC.I-L.L_f;..nN.n..___..___..n______..__n...nn_
;;~~:€:L:O::14.B__:'P_fl_Av._;;.n!!.1..n..._nn_n_n____nnn
c4u'l'rt 1-\ CA Cj I~/O
rl
a-
a-
ru
"'*"
,.' 'h~" M""''''
.........!it:
.-
...t::)
r-:i <II,
fT1
""
O. """0. . ..",. """,,. ,,' o..,~',,,,.,",' ,,,'.-.....,"'-
I . .. I
. "
Postage , ',-/0
Certified Fee ,.YO
~ Postmark
Relurn Reciep! Fee ell 5 Here
(Endorsement Aequirea1
Restrided Delivery Fee ,
(E:1Oorsement Required1 ~/ 7 Ie: )
GJ~ ( /
Total Posta e & Fees
rl
..!J
:r
o
o
o
o
..!J
rl
rl
~
9
1$
Co
o
o SenrTo
f'- si,;,~~tlt-(;..n6.QK.C!.Q.~Lm.-----mnnnn--n-n---nnnn----
':".o_"Dx.~DJ_~_e.n4' 1'1 f.\ V E ..~n'?n..____nn___n___m___n.
'C'HUL~~.VISTi-\ 'C-A-nc-j I C) I 0
.._,
-
,., '.,,,.M,""
~~~'-~~'-._~
~ .I,.,,,,,,:,, ,'~I ",;. ,1,,_'" ,;,;~, ..:.~f,':,-";:;__-:,..,, :, " "'0..; .~. .;,'
fT1
QJ
rl
..!J
- .. ,..1, .. ,,,... ..' " . o. ,. -"
I , .
, . ..
PostJJ]B $ dO
- I
C2rtilied F<:!J ;: )-0
- Postmark
Return Rec',eptFee .J
(Er:dor:;ementReqlllred) ,7.) H,~
Restricted Deliver/Fee ~/(o(
{E:1dor:;ementAequired}
Tota! Post)gQ & F<<es $ ( " 5~ ,
:r
o
o
o
o
..!J
rl
rl
~
o
o Sem Ta
f'- _.___LO.....'If....Bi;_!,(9.______..._nn______......_...n_...._...n__n_____
Streel__Apl. No.;. __ .rr
"".O_"DX_NDnH.Bn:'J.'--~___A\!.~______...Lh...h.........h___n____
cC'~w.:;~z~\Hl.vr\ST A
fT1
L1l'
IT"" ..
ru
fT1
""
rl
..!J
"
';""e ., .'__ .._""~.
. ~~ ,,--.~~_ .,. ."""M'."~
"
=-
J"'";J.:'I~
,,' .J
-
, .. ".,-, ".,,, "'''''' '''' ,." ",.., ",- ~''-.',. ., "C,~.-: " .
I , '.
..' ,
Pas,age , (/0 I
Certifi~Fee J J of
Return Rec:ep1 Fee J-7r PGsrrnark
(E:1dcrsemenrAequiredj He~e
Restric:~Deliver/F~e (/1 (c
(Endorsement Require1) >
Total Postage &. F~es $ i 4. ,..-
o
o
o
o
..!J
rl
rl
:r
o
~ s_,,~Ll'{JA..hgg_\~_~_E2n...hnnh____mhh.....m.nn
~t~~~~{;~~~~~J4_B___4J__~_A_~.~.___~_=~L...._.H.___H__.m
C'(J~l'J'Lt\ \j l51 i\ C \ 0; ( c-; I 0
''''I'
a-
fT1
a-
ru
. a~~t:I'
JI!=-
,.,'"."""
m _::0;--::;;.-::1'" '\'tl,,,,,,,,,,,,I."i:'"'''~..,, o..,~",,:::::Fi.....
~I '..
~
Pas1age , . ~/{)
Cartified Fee J. )0
7c; Po~mark
Return Reciep1 Fee 0 Here
(EndcrsementRequired) j' I '
Res1l1cted Delivery F~e I If
~ 7 t
(EnacrsementReqUlreoj , '
, i .
$;( /
Total Postage & Fees $ &
o
o
o
o
..!J
rl
rl
~
o
::: ~~~t':\Q_N.LC(~'J.J:t_.?_A.!'D6_N.J.E..C::::_(}__.n_..hn___h
;;~';::-~~~.;ILl8 411--1 i~ vE P b
n_..____n____h _.1..___.__.__._... .____n..____.__....._n_..n......n..__.n____
CttfUlt1 Vl.qA CI-I C'jIC) to
":-1-;,,, '''"',
..~...~"'~ : ;'1. ~1::;:.>.;;__'-;..>~1
~ \-y-\1f5 -~C\QC\fJ- U'I Y:-/7 jc:-;-
~
<
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS- FORM B
~
NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE TENANT
OF INTENT TO CONVERT
(PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF RENTAL AGREEMENT)
To the prospective occupant(s) of:
!.t/ B 4TH /~Vf
(address)
ti 5 C~VlA VISTA(C A 02c?/O
(apartment #)
The owner(s) of this building, at M9 47/-1AV& Ci/(JLA VillA CA iPJ2a/O (address), has filed or
plans to file a Design Review and Tentative/Parcel Map application with the City of Chula Vista to
convert this building to a condominium project. No units may be sold in this building unless the
conversion is approved by the City of Chula Vista and until after a public report is issued by the
Department of Real Estate. If you become a tenant of the building, you shall be given notice of each
hearing for which notice is required pursuant to Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 of the Government Code,
and you have the right to appear and the right to be heard at any such hearing. The owner or owner's agent
shall provide a total of five (5) different notices throughout the approval process to each tenant prior to the
tenant vacating the premises due to the conversion. The City of Chula Vista will notify each tenant of all
.~ three public hearings (Design Review Committee, Pla:J..."'1ing Commission, and City Council) for the
project approval. If you moved in after the process had began, the owner or owner's representative shall
inform you of the current status of the project and how many notices you wi1l be given prior to vacating
the unit. ~/1~1 fl. if d~~~p4~
(signature of owner or owner's agent)
(;,-7- OS
(date)
/~
I _> rospective tenant's signature)
~j~(
(da e~/
/
I have received this notice on'1~
/ /
~/~
(Section 66427.1 (a) & 66452.8 of the Government Code)
CO~1)O:'Hlj';lUM CO?-'v'ERSIOC'{S- FOR\-l G
ISO-DAY
NOTICE TO EXISTI:>iG TENA.l\T
OF I:>iTEJ'<T TO CO?-,v'ERT/TER\-lINATlON OFTEJ'<A.'1CY
To the occupant(s) of:
148 4th Avenue
(address)
(apartment #)
The ovvner(s) of this building, at 148 4th A venue (address), have obtair.ed
all necessary approvals from the City of Chula Vista and Department or Real Estate. After the approval of
the Building Permit, the ovvner can begin the construction process of converting the u..-uts ir.to
condominium, if changes are being proposed. The ov.TIer has the right to terminate your lease or re:Jtal
agreement on or after 180 days of the date of this notice. Please verify with the OV;TIer or ov;TIer's agent of
the anticipated move out date if you have not purchased your unit. Tenants who have purchased their units
may also be required to temporary move out during the construction phase.
ViA-G~~~~""d t-"'---', \ ,tjJ<-r/o')
P CJ ~ d~ 0 r
J- v~-r"'d- ~ -c.---(...... e 7
k:J 7 Ph',l \'.? P'v-^> ' t I:.. , ! u '"
1 /
/Ii,' .;, /"/
/i. / .;/ C ,/ X..:----
II/V';' ,,' .,'
(signature of owner or OwTIer's ag;:Dt)
06/06/2005
(date)
(Section 66427.1 (c) of r..t~ Guvemrn<:'TIt ClJdel
Pl
JJ
ru
. I. ''''
~..
I-I;) ~t0i""'-' ';:':::~;j~
."./ II,
!!."."" ,"-;,,\'ll~;~;;-~h ""1
.~.~
(L:II1/j \/Fl'A ("4 o'oir>
~
o
o
o
, " -
J~'--.:-^1~
PQ~t;"lge 3 ,. " I /' ' - \"
$2.3i) .'_-1 1101\1 1/ n'
C2rt;I'ecl Fee ~ '^ ),;- I
~I:" "
- ~.ll",'Postma ~ I
Rerum Rcc:eptFee $1.75 .' ~::,
(E'-'CQr::,ement Required) "-.....'"'~.] .....,-<":
Re~tric~ecl Delivery Foo lO.OO ,- "
(E:"10or:;ementRe<:;Ulred) I .. "
Total Post;:)ge 3. Fees 1$ \,,33 11/29, 2(
o
JJ
M
M
~
o
o
r-
S,"nI To
~'f~~:';:;~:L:~;::i::::~;::~:~:::~:;:;:;::::::~::i:::::::::::::::::1
., ,,,,,,,,, ft",......""....
....",..~.r.:" '
U"]
rr-
U"]
ru
, it .'.
,{ ,..... ;., ~
~? ~-y
.;\.
/J";"'V'~_,i ...
F.r
:u.!.j
.',/ Jifr....
m ~1,..-r.,c.t\ '''~'Ir;;\.,1,,"''',.,' \'I""'~""_'"
~ I ('HliLA \)TcrA ("A o1QHt
::r
o
o
r-
."
Posiage , !f' ..
C2r1iiir;-d;:--;e $2.30 Q~"
RettJm RecieDt;:-e~ $1.75 I
(E:-:corsement Rcqulred) ! - '~t
Restlie.ecl Delivery Fee to.OO I~ ,29,.. ~ \
(Er;cor.:;ementR.:quired)
Totol Postage &. Fees $ $4.33 \' ~'9D211" -'-::,' /
,:. -' /
Senl To ,. ./
Sire'~~'ApINo~;-"------"h__U---U.~uu._---um___m,,_,uh_:_m..m___"_n
a'POeaxNa. jl.t'i3 Lf-r'- O-..Jt:. #" '::i.
C~u.----_u_---._ .n_....n....nn.......u....._......Un.nn... 'nnu...___..
.!y, Slc.te, Z!P+4
.'-1 ",,,, ,':: ~11, '. ~",..;",,,--';'" m ..,.~~,"~,' ~ ~~, ... """'''H.'..,__
~
o
o
o
o
JJ
M
M
JJ
U"]
JJ
ru
~ I..""',.,,,,",
, . ("HULR VFTR CA Q191;1
JJ
:'".~,,~-.
-
C' 0 "
Postage , i-fI ~ """ G -",--
,-' - . (;
Co?rti!ied F~e $.2.30 ~}r~lO ~SJ
\ 'It:' ~ :.', '
,"", ""'1m.,,) ~ \
Return Rec:emFee $1. 7~ I I "C\~ere 'j
(E,-,dorsement Requlred\ i ~v ~ I
Restricted Delivery Fee l!:,_ \,.:1. '.--..s'-~ Vl:'
(E~dorsementRequrrea\ ) v" _ .-
~) _/ c_/
'\.'" \ '
Tomi Postage 3. Fees $ h.QL' l~
o
D
o
D
JJ
M
M
::r
o
o
r-
Senr ,0
"uu___nn.n_nn_n_nn___n__
~!~~~;~~~~~~~i~~!~~6~~~~~~ZE~~~2\.~_~~mJ:!::m~mnmu
C.ty, Slate, ZlP..4
-
.,,,,..,,,,,,.
-,r.'!.h:;p~~f:;,,:!:,~~::~'
"--1
r-
U"]
ru
fT1 :'j",.-{.~!i, ;\ JI';!\. 'r<' "'~0;1.". "~__,,--::-:i,,
cO I ('''~IL' I)"~' -"' . -
r-1 -"'-' H ,:;TA U; 91711)
JJ
-
~.,~
Postage $ $0.33
~
0 C2rtiried Fe~ ~.:.ji.l
0
0 Return Rec:eptFe~ H.75
0 (Endorsement Requrredj
JJ Restn~ed Deliverj Fee $(1.(10
M (E~dorsemer.t Requrred)
M $4.33
::r Tab! Post;:J.ge & F~es $
0
0 Sent ro
r-
I .' VI:
/~'- .~ /'
.)-~"'1
f I~}U /"," rl
. I 2'5 Pr.i~',y
.\ ,: ~r?r~""'" J s:
".- C-,'^'
S. \ ';,)' /0
..v :->'-.......-/<r-. i
0' ",~
"oJ,.
. . ".-II
u_nhuu_u _ u,_ h_hnnn_ u_______u,.
~~:.~?~~~;~~~~_ ~ _ ~~ ~ _~( ~~ ~~~1~~~ ~ _~( _~ _~., ~~_ _':: .~.. __:e...... ____ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _.
Cty, SI.JIe, ZIP+4
'"
M
JJ
ru
fl,."
1!~""'C.C'=I"'"."e"':.."'~.".:'
r-1 _ Cf-iUlA VET;; CA 91:;'11)
JJ
[Tl
'"
o
o
o
P::Jstas:e , !!.!
CiCrtifiecl F~e .'''. -~'-
Retum Reciept F,"~ ~ ~ i~
(E~dor~emen; Required) ..".j..
R~slric:ed Deliver! F~~ t^..
(Er.dorsementReGulre~) , .'.'."
Total Postage & Fees $ $i.82,
I.:-,,'~."i-:-'.
'L- "'- ",
I~. /.:.:' PJstm. a1\ '..:~' '-\
i, . r; \ ,_
~t\ -~":7:,1 ~ ;
u~J
"'cA.'r .'-'';;';;-)
!L,'t'~t\'-</
~
o
..1J
M
M
::r
o
o
r-
Sr;ntTo
~~~~~;;~;~~~~i~j~e~~~~~q~::{~~~,~;;:~~~~~:)~~::~~~~~~~~~~~~~
City, Slale, ZIP+4
'"
'"
U"]
ru
[Tl
'"
M
JJ
. .k-.~- "."",
r:Hln " ..nC'T Q1Qtfi
Post;:u;e $ ;1;,-. ".
C~rtilied F~e $2.2;::
RetumRecieplFee $;..75
(Ef1dorsementRequired)
Reslricred Deiiver'jFee $i:!.!Y:
(E~aorsement ReqUlrec\
Total Postage 3. Fees $ h.33
813m To
,~
\--....J
, A
~
o
o
o
/
!v~/
C~.~.1p~t,
~J~'"
<9
->
r'\'~ r..:;
'" -
- - ~
ltJ17,_'JOV
~,- '::' /
-~/
o
JJ
M
M
! 0 II
-
o
o
r-
_u_n_n_n.n__.
~;~~~~~;~;~~~~~~~l~~~!~~i~~~~S:!~~~~~{~~~~~~~~~~'F_._~m_mmm
City, SI.Jle. ZIP"'4
:'-,,-.,, . ~""",
1,..~~.~:!. M.:.~t
--
",.,'JI"",
!T'
.or
..D
ru
CTl
<0
ri
..D
" ". " . "'"." -n." :..."., ... .. I",
I V;~.A'-' QI~l- " . I
CHULA =>1' t..to{ ,___U -
Postage $ $0 ..~} /, i'MO~
'--~
CertifiedF~e $2.30 /~'" /-{,OlO /"')
Return Reciept F~e $1.75 I :: \ \1\, "'"1:
t'V.',..J;'fe
(E:1dorsementAeqUlrea) ,." .,;;)- ~
Restricted Delivery Fee $0.00 4 >'_. ..,/ rq--';
(EnoorsementAequlred) . ) 1 _ ,-'") /
". ,
Total Postage & Fees $ h..ss 11/29/:mi.:5
=-
o
o
o
o
..D
ri
ri
-
o
o Samra
r--
~!~~~!;:~O:':::!::c:L~::::::lj::~::~~~~~::::fF:T:m::.
C./y, $lqre. 2!P+.J. _ __ _n _
~."..,._-
-~:...' "-''''''-"
.,. ""...."..-,
ATTACH1\'1ENT H
Disclosure Statement
~\ft--
-,-
~-----.;:
--
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Oepartmcnt
Development Processing
cm OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Coune:! Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require disGctlonary action by the CO:J:1c:;.
P!anning Commission and all othcr officie.1 bodies of the City, a statement of dlsc:osur8 cf certain Q\Nnershlp or finCi:lc:2'
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following inforrTiat:cn
r;',:~~t 'c:c :::fisc1c:2" '::d
list t';-,,; name::; of 211 persons ha'l!ng a fincmcial intorE:st In the propertj that IS the subjcst cf the- 8c:pi!caton c~ the:
cOl1tr.Jct, 8_g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier
H.'lC/~"- \ 'Pc..\~~l.oo
Ph', \\.~ V" 0, "'-'>
L
!f 2n~1 c.e~~or.~ Idc;,:j';:E:'"~ PUfS'...!2::t to:' (i ,:' ct'CiS os u cc.r;:cr2t:c:- c: ::2itr.srS:':G
252000 invcstrr,2r.t In me Dus,ness (ccr;:;oratlonipartilHship) entity
Ls: tr-i(; n2:T:E::: c~ 2;: l'i,:"rCJc.'::
\" r~
..c
d I (.C,-
o .
fJ(1A
3. If any person~ identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of a~IY peiscr[
serving as director of the non-profit org2.nization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust
----t~J~--~----
Iv ( It\
I
4. Pie.sse identify Every peson, including 2.ny 8g8rlts. employees, consultants. or :ncependent contractor::: YrJ~ "'ICVS
assigned to represent YC',}; be~::re the (it) :r: tnis rr2r.:er.
Ph',l\~<-Q D:c.--<,
~~~'J'"-~ -rko - '"-'>
5
rias any person~ aS3oc:ated with this c::,ntr2ct had any financial dealings wityan offic;aih Of the Ct~/ of C~ula
Vista as it re!ates to thiS contract \".'ltilITi tr.e past 12 months. Yes~ Nc~
\
\
\
..~-
If Yes briefly desc:-ibe the nature aT the financ:ai interest the cffic:alh m.sy have in this c::mtrac:.
\
\
6
Have you made a contrlbuticn of more)han $250 withm the past twelve (12) months to a eur:-e~lt member of tr.e
Chuia Vista City Counc;l? No _ Yes ~ If yes. which Coune:1 memcerr
......~\/?-
-f-
~-----
~=
p I ann
n g
& Building
PI<.1nr1:r1L' Di'/ic,iO!1
Dcpartmcn
[)('vclofJrTl(-_'nt Prl)I>>\i:'
CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLlCATJON APP!::NDIX 6
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided rr.ore than 5340 (or an item of equi'/aic::t '/Jl'J8) to ;:;('; of'c.:;:I"' of th:; Citj 0: CilL::;::: V::::~ 'i t'~,2
past twelve (12) months? (ihis inc!ucE:S beng a source cf incJrT'<c. mene,! to retirs a legal debt. gift. iCc'1. Etc:'
Ycs_ NoL
I; '( ___ N:liC:-1 e:ffc:a!>~ ;::,rl1:: w:'iat \/1/;:;'S ti;E na:Jr:; c,f :te~ ;J;O'iiC2'~'
\
"
Dotc-.1L/1 0/ ::J-.OQ ~
<<f:~' ~~ ~
s,gnatAf CO~,~~,~t/~:e:,
t-'\.-,~....~,- Q. 9<>.lv-",^l.ca F--
tyc,e narr,c of Ccr,t:-3ctoriAoplicdnt
Ferson IS defined as: any individu2:, firm, co-p2rtnershlp, JOint vs'""',t:Jrc assoc:Cr:C;I, ~,::;:::2: c:u:::
Of';!.aniz2tion, cm;::,cratlon, estate, t;ust. r2Se~'Je:, sj'nd:cate, 2nj ot"lE: CQUiotj, ctJ, mun!c~po.;;(/_ d:st:-:c:
\=O::LC;::; s~i:::d:;</:::::Gn, -.y a'll' otn~: group 01- c:J:r:b~n2t(Jn acrir,~ 23 2 '--!ni:
'..-'- ~--
: ~ C':,::-
Officia! inciudes, but IS not limited to: tv1ayor, Council membc:r, Ficirlr::nG COrTir;',ssionc;, M2'I1'CC:: c.; c:: _~.c -
commission, or committee of the City, 8fliployet::, or staff members