HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2006/02/08
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Of the City of Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
Public Services Building
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
Madrid_ Felber_ Bensoussan_ Hom_ Nordstrom_ Tripp_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
January 25, 2006
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 04-53; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
filed by the St. Pius X Church for a master plan to
renovate and expand the existing buildings at the St.
Pius X Church and parochial school. The proposed
project includes the expansion of the sactuary to
accommodate a seating capacity of 853 (402 seats
added). Applicant: Catholic Diocese of San Diego.
(Quasi-judicial)
Project Manager: Gerald Moorer
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 06-05; A variance request to waive the one (1) off-
street parking space that is required for an accessory
second dwelling unit located at 97 "D" Street.
Applicant: Carl and Leticia Zinno (Quasi-judicial)
Project Manager: Lynette Tessitore-Lopez, Assoc. Planner
Planning Commission
-2-
February 8, 2006
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
AD.JOURNMENT:
To a regular Planning Commission meeting on
February 22, 2006.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANSWITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-
5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Public Services Building
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER:
Members Present:
Member(s) Absent:
Madrid, Felber, Bensoussan, Nordstrom, Tripp
Horn
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
November 16, 2005.
MSC (Madrid/Felber) (5-0-1-0) to approve minutes as
submitted with noted corrections. Motion carried.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Madrid.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 06-01; Proposal to amend the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) to regulate the brewing and
distilling of liquors in the Limited Industrial (I-L)
Zone. Applicant: City of Chula Vista.
Background: John Schmitz reported that this item is before the Commission as a
result of two individuals who applied for a business license seeking to operate a small
brewing facility at 779 Anita Street. Subsequently, the business license was denied
because the Municipal Code currently prohibits the brewing or distilling of liquors within
the I-L Zone.
Staff determined that with a minor adjustment to the Zoning Ordinance, the
establishment of micro-breweries would facilitate "home-grown" businesses and would
be a worthy economic development effort.
The two-part amendment involves first, amending Section 19.44.050(9), prohibiting
brewing or distilling of liquors except those requiring a Type 23 ABC license. Type 23
licenses allow small micro-breweries that typically produce specialty beers with the
option of having a small restaurant or pub and cannot exceed more than 60,000 barrels
of beer per year.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
January 25, 2006
6:21 :02 PM At such time that the ordinance amendment is approved, the applicants intend to
submit a Conditional Use Permit application.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Cuuncil the adoption of the ordinance adding Section 19.44.040Q and amending
Section 19.44.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to conditionally allow the brewing
and distilling of liquors within the Limited Industrial Zones of the City of Chula Vista.
Commission Questions I Comments:
Cmr. Bensoussan asked:
· What defines a micro vs. macro brewery.
· Is 779 Anita Street within the Redevelopment Area; if so, would the Planning
Commission be excluded from the review process and would it be done by the
CVRC; and
· Does the applicant intend to include a pub in his proposal
John Schmitz responded that the ABC Board defines a microbrewery as one that
produces less than 60,000 barrel per year. Karl Strauss, for example, has an annual
output of approximately 15,000 barrels.
Mr. Schmitz further stated that the site is not within the Redevelopment Area, but if it
were, the CVRC would review the Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation
to the RDA.
Mr. Schmitz stated that the 779 Anita St. site would be the production facility, that
would supply the restauranUpubs that are planned in the future.
Cmr. Tripp inquired if the Planning Commission would have the ability to condition the'
CUP, and if so, would it be limited to land use matters and not something that is under
the purview of the ABC Board.
Mr. Schmitz responded that if the Commission can make the findings that this use does
not violate the General Plan requirements, is not detrimental to surrounding land uses,
you can craft any Condition of Approval you deem appropriate to help meet those
standards.
Cmr. Tripp pointed out that the ABC Board has authority for regulating ABC permits,
therefore, as a recommendation to staff, perhaps it would be helpful to the Planning
Commission to receive training on what is the scope of the Planning Commission's
authority relative to these types of uses that are also regulated by the ABC Board.
John Mullen further clarified that the City is preempted from regulating the distribution
and sale of alcohol, however, it still has land use authority for the Conditional Use
Permit process.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
January 25, 2006
6:31 :42 PM PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.
Doug Chase, 2322 Spanish Bay Road, future applicant, stated he was available to
answer questions.
Cmr. Bensoussan asked what was the anticipated production and whether they plan
to establish a pub/restaurant.
Mr. Chase responded that their plans are to open three restaurants within a five-year
period. The locations they are considering is east Chula Vista, downtown Chula Vista,
the Gaslamp District and possibly one in Coronado. As mentioned earlier, the Anita
Street site would be for manufacturing and distribution. In terms of production, an
average brew-pub produces approximately 700 barrel per year. Mr. Chase and partner
would be extremely pleased if they produced 1,000 barrels for each of their restaurant.
Cmr. Nordstrom inquired if there are any plans to sell at local supermarkets, or would
their production be solely for the restaurants.
Mr. Chase responded that it would be strictly for the restaurants because the nature of
the beer distribution business is very challenging and complex.
6:35:53 PM PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
Cmr. Nordstrom congratulated Mr. Chase, bid him the best of luck in his future
business endeavors and stated that this is the type of business we need in the City; a
home-grown product sold in local restaurants.
6:36:07 PM MSC (Felber/Nordstrom) (5-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council the adoption of the ordinance adding Section 19.44.040Q and
amending Section 19.44.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to conditionally
allow the brewing and distilling of liquors within the Limited Industrial Zones of
the City of Chula Vista Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Jim Hare informed the Commission of the repositioning of personnel in the Planning and
Building Department, placing him as the Assistant Planning Director and stated he looked
forward to working with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hare gave an update on recent items that have gone before the City Council.
Commission Business:
Cmr Bensoussan stated that the joint meeting between the Housing Advisory
Commission and the Planning Commission was very productive and the minutes reflect
the many good comments made by both commissions and the public. Ms. Bensoussan
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
January 25, 2006
inquired if the content of the minutes will be relayed to the City Council in some form or
another.
Jim Hare stated that very shortly there will be City Council workshop on the Housing
Element and the comments and information gathered at the earlier joint workshop will most
definitely be reflected in staff's report.
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that if there is interest from the Planning Commission, she
would like to see on a future agenda for discussion purposes an item to make a formal
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to get a move on the
public review process for the CVRC.
Cmr. Tripp stated he's not certain that the Planning Commission needs to weigh in on a
public review process that would be held at a public hearing, given that the RDA would
hold a public hearing and Council members are all members of the RDA and they would
form a public review process independent of the Planning Commission.
46:53 PM Meeting adjourned.
Prepared by: Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: I
Meeting Date: 02/08/2006
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration ofPCC 04-053 a Conditional Use Pennit filed
by the St. Pius X Church for a master plan to renovate and expand the
existing buildings at the St. Pius X Church and parochial school. The
proposed project includes the expansion ofthe Sanctuary to accommodate a
seating capacity of 852 (402 seats added). The applicant is the Catholic
Diocese of San Diego.
The Applicant, the Catholic Diocese of San Diego, has submitted an application for a conditional use
pennit for the demolition, expansion, and modification ofthe existing church facilities and school.
The project proposes the renovation and expansion ofthe Sanctuary, the construction of a new parish
hall, the renovation and an addition to the existing administration offices, and the renovation of
school facilities to include a new multipurpose room. The project is located at 1120 Cuyamaca
Avenue.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, 1S-04-028, in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project could result in significant effects
on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1S-
04-028 (See Attachment 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration). The Resource Conservation
Commission recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 9,2006.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S-04-028 and
Resolution PCC-04-053 (See Attachment 2 - Resolution PCC-04-053) approving Conditional Use
Pennit PCC-04-053 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Backgronnd
S1. Pius X Church was built from 1955 through the early 1970's under both San Diego County
and City ofChula Vista zoning regulations. The existing church complex consists of the 450-seat
sanctuary, a parish hall, parish offices, a rectory, and an elementary school. Due to the projected
needs of the parish community and the deteriorated condition of the facilities, the project
applicant proposes a master pan for the expansion, demolition, and renovation the existing
Page No.2, Item:
Meetin2 Date: 02/08/06
facilities (See Attachment 3 -Project Plans). The proposed project includes the expansion ofthe
sanctuary to accommodate a seating capacity of 852 (402 seats added).
In January 2004, the Applicant met with its' parishioners and the local community prior to the
submittal of the conditional use permit application. The intent of the meeting was to introduce
the community to the concept plans for the proposed project. According to the Applicant, at this
meeting there was no opposition to the project from the attendees, and many were supportive of
the project and admired the design. Staff was not in attendance at this meeting.
On August 16,2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners and residents
within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The Initial Study determined that the
proposed project might have potential significant environmental impacts; however, the project
proposes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent out for public review on December 15,
2005. No comments were received during the public review period. The Resource Conservation
Commission recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 9, 2006.
On February 6,2006, the project is scheduled to go before the DRC with a Staff recommendation
for approval. Staff will advise the Commission of the results of this hearing as part of the
presentation of this conditional use permit.
2. Project Site Setting
The project site consists of 5. 1 8-acres located on the west side ofCuyamaca Avenue between
East Naples Street and East Emerson Street, in an urbanized area in the western portion ofthe
City ofChula Vista. The project site is developed with the existing St. Pius X Catholic Church,
rectory, school, parish offices, meeting hall, workshop/storage buildings, and paved parking lot.
The site's topography is relatively flat, gently sloping from the east to the west. The site consists
of two separate legal parcels.
3. General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The following table describes the land use of the site and the abutting properties:
General Plan
Zoning
Current Land Use
Site:
Residential (Low-Medium Density)
R-l
Church, rectory,
parish, meeting hall,
school
Single- family residence
Single- family residence
North:
South:
Residential (Low-Medium Density)
Residential (Low-Medium Density)
R-l
R-l
Page No.3, Item:
Meetin2 Date: 02/08/06
East:
West:
Residential (Low-Medium Density)
Residential (Low-Medium Density)
R-l
R-l
Single- family residence
Single- family residence
4. Project Description
The conditional use pennit application requests approval of a 10,648 square-foot expansion of
the existing sanctuary to accommodate 852 seats (402 additional seats), the renovation and
expansion of the parish offices, demolition of the existing parish hall and the construction of a
new 12,150 square-foot parish hall, and the renovation and expansion of the school. The project
will also provide 67 additional on-site parking spaces and other on-site improvements including,
but not limited to a six-foot masonry wall along the western property line and landscaping
improvements.
The Applicant considers the existing parish facilities undersized for the current activities and in
need of upgrading. The master plan is designed to increase the efficiency of buildings in order to
reduce the number of services and times of use. Currently, the church holds nine services during
the weekend; this number will be reduced to five by combining Sunday morning services and
canceling the Sunday evening mass. All proposed expanded and/or renovated facilities will
continue to be utilized in the same manner and serve the same functions as they do currently. The
church, hall and office buildings will be organized around a new plaza with a covered arcade to
provide a central gathering space for parish interaction. The site will be graded to accommodate a
sloped parking area with new landscaped shaded areas and parking lighting. The parking lot area
will be increased to accommodate the additional required parking spaces for the expanded
church.
5. Project Data Table
Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
Current Zonin :
Land Use Desi
Lot Area:
REQUIRED:
Parking:
1 space/3.5 seats = 243 spaces
575-450-2600 & 574-450-2700
R-1 (Sin le-famil residential
Low-Medium Densit Residential
5.18 acres
PROVIDED:
Standard: 213
Compact: 23
Disabled: 7
Total: 243
28 ercent
(All existing setbacks)
48 feet
15 feet
25 feet
28 feet
Lot Covera e: 40 ercent
Setback:
Front: 25 feet
Side: 10 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Building Rei t: 28 feet
Page No.4, Item:
Meeting Date: 02/08/06
6. Staff Analysis
Main Church (Sanctuary)
The existing sanctuary will be enlarged to accommodate additional seating by changing the
configuration from basilica style seating to monastery style within the interior. The expanded
sanctuary will accommodate 852 seats, an increase of 402 seats. A new main entrance is
proposed along the south (rear) elevation, with access to the sanctuary mainly from the
interior parking lot. The original primary entrance along the north elevation will be modified.
The St. Pius X project is a master planned expansion and renovation project. Pursuant to
Chapter 19.54 - Unclassified Uses of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), Section
19.54.020F, a church is an unclassified use. Section 19.24.4.0 ofthe CVMC provides that an
unclassified use is permitted in the RI-Single-Family Residence zone, subject to the review
and issuance of a conditional use permit. This entitlement requires approval by the Planning
Commission.
Historical/Cultural Significance
The proposed project involves remodeling of the existing St. Pius X Catholic Church
complex. The proposed changes include alterations or demolition of the main Church and
rectory, the parish hall, offices and school. A Final Historic Architectural Survey Report
(HASR) and Findings of Effect Report (FOE) prepared for the project evaluated the project
for historical significance using criteria outlined in Public Resource Code 5024.1, Title 14
CCR, Section 4852, California Register of Historical Resources (See Attachment 4 - HASR
and FOE). The HASR and FOE identified the main Church and rectory as historic
architectural resources for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of
construction. These buildings are representative example of a Modem interpretation of the
Mission style by incorporating the character defining features such as shaped parapets with
coping in the Mission Revival style, a bell tower, cross at the tops ofthe parapets and tower,
and the frequent use of arched openings.
The HASR and FOE assessed the impacts ofthe proposal and determined that the renovation
and expansion of the St. Pius X Catholic Church complex are considered significant and
would cause a substantial adverse change on a historic architectural resource. Mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts to cultural resources to a level below significance as
recommended in the HASR and FOE are proposed as part ofthe project and are identified in
Section F ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because the project involves a remodel of
the Church as opposed to demolition, mitigation measures documenting the existing Church
building and its relationship to the complex before, during and after construction through a
photographic representation has been determined to be adequate mitigation.
Page No.5, Item:
Meeting Date: 02/08/06
The Resource Conservation Commission recommended adoption ofthe Mitigated Negative
Declaration on January 9,2006.
Parking & Traffic
The church was previously built under the County of San Diego zoning regulations. The
sanctuary currently has a seating capacity of 450 pennanent seats and provides 176 on-site
parking spaces. The current sanctuary seating parking ratio is approximately one parking
space per 2.55 sanctuary seats. Chapter 19.62 - Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the
CVMC, requires that off-street parking be provided at the ratio provided in Section
19.62.050(9) Churches and Private Schools; this section provides that the parking
requirements are detennined by the facility creating the highest demand, which in this case is
the church sanctuary. One parking space for each 3.5 seats in an auditorium must be
provided. Whereas the proposed expanded sanctuary will have a maximum seating capacity
of 842 seats, the required number of parking spaces must be 243 spaces.
The proposed project includes 67 new on-site parking spaces, increasing the total from 176 to
243. A parking analysis prepared for the project concluded that the 243 parking spaces as
shown on the proposed site plan would meet the on-site parking ratio and no additional
parking would be necessary.
The proposed church expansion is projected to generate approximately 57 new average daily
trips (ADTs). The new ADTs include one (1) inbound/outbound trip projected to occur
during the morning peak: hour and 2 inbound/outbound trips to occur during the evening peak:
hour. A traffic impact analysis prepared as part of the environmental review of the project
demonstrates that the proposed proj ect would have no significant peak: hour impacts to
intersections or on nearby roadway segments. Additionally, the traffic impact analysis
detennined that internal circulation would also be improved as a result of the proposed
building configuration and the parking lot layout. No significant traffic impacts will result
from the proposed church expansion project.
Church Carnival
The St. Pius X Church hosts an annual carnival as a special fund-raising event in the parking
lot of the church property. The church has annually obtained an administrative conditional
use pennit for this function and has controlled the event pursuant to the conditions of the
conditional use pennit. Staff recommends that these events continue to be reviewed and
approved through the administrative use pennit process. Staff further recommends that this
conditional use pennit limit these events to one event per year.
Page No.6, Item:
Meeting Date: 02/08/06
School
The existing school facility consists of a two-level building in the southern portion of the
church property. The school facility currently has 8 classrooms and an enrollment of 350
students. Improvements to the school facilities include the addition of meeting and
specialized learning rooms, a new 6,536 square foot multi-purpose building with kitchenette,
teacher's lounge and an after-school day care office, and renovation ofthe sports office and
equipment storage room. With the proposed improvements the school building will have 10
available classrooms and learning rooms to accommodate 350 students. The proposed
renovated and expanded facilities are intended to provide updated/state-of-the art facilities
for the benefit of the elementary school students. With the improvements no increase in
student population is proposed.
The current hours of operation for the existing school activities are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. No changes to the existing hours of operation or changes to the
current enrollment are proposed.
Parish Hall
The existing 5,620 square foot hall and workshop/storage buildings are proposed to be
demolished. A new 12,150 square foot parish hall will be constructed south of the existing
rectory and will include assembly and meeting spaces, a kitchen, a stage, and storage closets.
The proposed hall will be used for parish meetings and social events. The school will also
use the hall for assemblies and performance activities. The parish hall includes an indoor
stage which has a roll up door on the southern elevation to allow the school children to gather
outside and watch presentations from the playground.
Conclusion
The granting ofthe conditional use permit, as Conditioned, allows for the functional use of
the facility while protecting the character and the quality of life of the residential
neighborhood. Based on the above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-028, and approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-04-
053 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution.
Attachments:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Resolution PCC-04-053
3. Project Plans
4. Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Finding of Effect Report (FOE)
5. Disclosure Statement
\-----/ \ 'I i \~/ // )), \. \.
~ ,\ I _,/-'..-----\ '. /' \ \
~~~ \ \~~- <C"/'/ \, '> \ \ \ \. \,
'\ ~~ Guatay AV "..--~ I \\ \ " ~ . " I
. ~~,. \, /'\ "\ \\ "1., y/
,~~ ~ _______ " . I I \ ./( I \ ._____
~I \, I "" " \ I, ~/ I , \..----
( \ \ 1 "'" \" \. ~ \ \ \ \----~----
I ~, '\'. , '~~\ \ " ,\ ~
I~~\ : I " I I " I I/~
\ \ \ \. \ \. \. '\ " -----
\\ _' \ \\ \ \. \. \. \., 'II _________ \ \ \ -....--
,~ " , , \ \ \ \ ',~ I' ----~\
\, ,\ \ \ ' ------- :,..---- ,
Neighborhood '\'\------------\ "\ \ \\ ~'-/ ~-\ ~, ~ "I~\ \
~ .-; , '_____ ..-- ,roy f\ \ /
~:~~~r - '. , (~j-j~~~;?\es S\ ~ \//C~~;\//i~~=-/:,~
\ ~ %'\///~. "'\ -------~II,. \,. '
) ,--------..---, 0 \~\, ~. '. (,.. ,\ "" \. \,
, . /~~ /",., ______ (") I ~" '\,',
'~--;::;/~ ~~ \, -;f. " ------ 0 \ ____/ \ ',~/~ '\
\-------~ .~ /r~~. ',% \,~ St. Pius ~ \/~. ..__\,.. \~,..//~, '''" ""
~ ~/ \, ~------------- " ~ () \~ Catholic Church - '. ,
'\ ' ~ I ..-->~ ____~ \.~\ \
..)//\O"'\\~~J~:-S '1/// & School \;/:s=/\~/i/-'--
-~;~OJECT~~\ \~~ \:/j/;
~:~ ~!C~TI~N~~~/!C t,t~fs9~\/~
'-_/t==, \// \~~~j >/\/-, \/<//
~..-- .----\,\, \~~, \----~/.\---~, . ~'\
-:-// ~. (~ ~ 1\ \~ ~ " ~--I\
\~ \v~\ \/ \\ \f \~'\ \",
~\, \,\ \~". \ \. I I"
.--- \ \ \ \,
~ \, \ ' /
/~/, ' , /~" \~\\
"I,(~\ Castle Park I/\~I \\~~\
I~, \, " \ \ \, /, /~/\
\ \/-/\ Eles~~~~~rv \~_:\/\ \./\//J ,/\\//\
~/~/~\. ~/~\ \ '\ ~\~; '~('~.~;d; /.,/\. \\~~.,------
\..__-----\ \, ~" \, '\ Y t,. O"'\~ \, \-------
\ ~ \~ . .,'. ~,.,. \\ \\,', \1, \\.. .'\ ~. ~/
. /~\... \///~, ..\ \ ~. ,---- r
--------~'\, \V'~\, (\ \, \\\ \\ \ \\ \ \. \ / ~
",~~\ \, ~\ .~\ \\, \. \ \\ '\\, \'y~'" '/,
/ ., /--\ y---- \ ~~\ \\, \ V ' ~ ____ ____ \-----------c-
~~
Water
Tower
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND
LOC)CATOR ~~~cl~;1T: St. Pius Catholic Church
PROJECT 1120 Cuyamaca Avenue
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCC-04-053
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Request: Proposal for expansion of church facilities,
NORTH
Related cases: DRC-04-53, 15-04-028
J :\planning\carlos\locators\pcc04053. cdr 05.24.04
Attachment 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-04-028
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: St. Pius X Catholic Church
PROJECT LOCATION: 1120 Cuyamaca Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 575-450-2600 & 575-450-2700
PROJECT APPLICANT: Catholic Diocese of San Diego
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: December 15, 2005
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: January 9,2006
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: January 24,2006
PREPARED BY: Mary Venables, Associate Planner
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of an approximately 5.18 acre area located on the west side of
Cuyamaca Avenue between E. Naples Street and E. Emerson Street. The site is situated in an
urbanized area in the western portion of the City of Chula Vista (See Exhibit A - Location Map).
The project site is developed with the existing St. Pius X Catholic Church, rectory, school, parish
offices, meeting hall and workshop/storage buildings.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following:
North: Single-family residences and neighborhood retail center
South: Single-family residences
East: Single-family residences
West: Single- family residences and elementary school
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes a master plan to develop and expand the existing church/school site in
phases to meet the projected needs of the parish community. (See Exhibit B - Site Plan).
The proposal includes the following major improvements:
. Church
A 10,648 square foot addition to accommodate 852 people and renovation of the existing
structure including a re-orientation of the church toward the parking area and new entry
on the south elevation.
1
. Parish Hall
The existing 5,620 square foot Hall and workshop/storage buildings to be demolished. A
new 12,150 square foot Parish Hall to be constructed south of the existing rectory to be
used for parish and school activities.
. Parish Offices
The existing administrative offices to be renovated and a 12,364 square foot two-story
addition to be attached to the existing structure. The first floor of the new structure is
proposed to contain meeting rooms, offices and a library with additional meeting rooms
on the second floor.
. School
Improvements to the school facilities include renovation of the sports office and
equipment storage, addition of meeting and specialized learning rooms, and a 6,536
square foot multi-purpose building with kitchenette, teacher's lounge and an after-school
day care office. No increase in student population is proposed.
. Miscellaneous Improvements
The Church, Parish Hall and Parish Offices to surround a new central plaza area with a
covered arcade. In addition, a new roof parapet to screen the existing roof mounted
mechanical equipment and a new driveway access to the existing Pastor's residence
(Rectory) are proposed. The proposal also includes site improvements for parking
facilities, new lighting and landscaping.
. Hours of Operation
Elementary School (K-8)
The current hours of operation for the existing school activities are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. No changes to the existing hours of operation or changes to the
current enrollment are proposed.
Church/Parish Activities
The hours of operation for existing church services and related parish activities is 8:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. No
changes to the current hours of operation are proposed.
The multi-phase development is outlined below:
Phase 1 a:
January 2006. Demolish the existing parish hall, accessory buildings and a
portion of the existing paving and fencing.
Phase Ib:
February 2006. Construct new boundary walls and fencing, parking lot, site
utilities and drainage improvements.
2
Phase lc:
April 2006. Construct new Parish Hall, meeting room building, social plaza with
covered arcade and associated landscaping.
Phase 2a
June 2009. Demolish a portion of the church, preparation for new construction.
Phase 2b
July 2009. Construct church addition.
Phase 2c
March 2010. Conduct site work, including retaining walls and landscape
associated with remodeled church building.
Phase 3
February 2014. Construct new multi-purpose building. Renovate and construct
additions to the school facilities.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The site is located in the Rl (Single-Family Residential) Zone and RLM (Low-Medium
Density Residential) General Plan land use designation. The project is consistent with the
applicable zoning regulations and the Chula Vista General Plan. The project requires the
approval of Design Review by the Design Review Committee and a Conditional Use Permit
by the Planning Commission.
D. Public Comments
On August 16, 2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners and
residents within 500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public comment period
ended August 26, 2005. Staff received one verbal communication regarding whether or not
the proposed proj ect would extend beyond the current property boundaries and requesting a
clarification of the design of the project. These issues have been addressed in the attached
Initial Study Checklist and the technical studies noted below.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project may have potential significant
environmental impacts however; revisions to the project have been made or mitigation
measures have been agreed to by the project proponent to reduce the impacts to a less than
significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Air Quality
Short-Term Impacts
The proposed project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the demolition
and construction phases of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during demolition,
grading and construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related
operations are considered sho!1-term in duration since construction-related activities are
temporary. Dust control measures required during construction operations would be
implemented in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air
3
Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. The mitigation
measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related air
quality impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Impacts
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). According to the Traffic
Study prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., weekday traffic generated by the proposed
expansion would be minimal, resulting in 57 new daily traffic trips. Two (2) of the new trips
occur during the morning peak hour and four (4) during the evening peak hour. The project
does not propose additional school activities or increases in the student population that would
increase peak hour traffic. Therefore, project generated traffic would not be significant or
result in adverse air quality impacts. The church/school land use has been included in
existing regional air quality projects and plans and does not conflict with or violate any
applicable air quality plans or standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
result in any significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts.
Cultural Resources
The proposed project involves partial remodeling of the existing St. Pius X Catholic Church
complex. Final Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Findings of Effect Report
(FOE), Galvin & Associates, August 2005 evaluated the project for historical significance
using criteria outlined in Public Resource Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852,
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
The proposed changes to the St. Pius X Catholic Church complex include alterations or
demolition of the main church and rectory, the parish hall, offices and school. The main
church and rectory were constructed in 1955 and are representative of a Modern
interpretation of the Mission Revival style. The HASR and FOE identified these two
buildings as a historic architectural resource that meets Criterion 3 of the CRHR for
embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction.
CEQA defines a historic resource as a resource that is listed or could potentially be listed in a
local historic resources register whether it has been listed or not. The main church and
rectory are eligible for historic designation on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites under
Criterion 3 of the CRHR for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of
construction.
The HASR and FOE assessed the impacts of the proposal and determined that the renovation
and expansion of the St. Pius X Catholic Church complex are considered significant and
would cause a substantial adverse change on a historic architectural resource. Mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts to cultural resources to a level below significance as
recommended in the HASR and FOE are proposed in Section F of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Because the project involves a remodel of the church as opposed to demolition,
mitigation measures documenting the existing church building and its relationship to the
complex before, during and after construction through a photographic representation has
been determined to be adequate mitigation.
4
Geology and Soils
To assess the potential geological and soils impacts of the project, Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation Proposed Improvements to Saint Pius Church, 1120 Cuyamaca Avenue, Chula
Vista, California, January 17, 2003, was prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering,
Inc. The results of this analysis are summarized below.
The project site is not located within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no
known significant or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site are identified.
According to the geologic study, the main issues that affect the proposed project deal with
the existence of unsuitable surface materials and moderately expansive soil. The submittal of
a final soils report is required prior to issuance of grading and construction permits to
determine final soil conditions and compliance with foundation and pavement
recommendations. In addition, erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction
with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction.
The impacts to geology and soils would be reduced to a level below significance provided
compliance with the recommendations and measures identified in the preliminary
geotechnical report are incorporated into the project design and final grading plan. Please
refer to Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Lead and Asbestos Removal
The existing structures proposed to be demolished/renovated potentially contain asbestos and
lead-based paint. Therefore, prior to any demolition activities the presence of asbestos and
lead-based paint will be determined and if present, abatement shall be performed by licensed,
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractors in accordance with all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District Rule 361.145, Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The mitigation measure
contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazards/hazardous material impacts
associated with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance.
Hydrologv and Water Quality
Based upon review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are
no significant issues or impacts regarding the proposed drainage improvements for the
project site. The project proposes the installation of a storm drain filter system, culvert,
backflow preventer, 3-inch PVC drainpipe, 6-inch PVC catch basin and inlets and placement
of appropriate gravel bags or dikes.
As required, the proposed drainage must be directed away from buildings and adjacent
properties. As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction
with the preparation of the project grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-
development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flows. The drainage
improvements as proposed woUld improve the overall on-site drainage system and
accommodate the proposed project. The drainage facilities shall be installed at the time of the
site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No significant impacts to the City's
storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed project.
5
In addition, compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and a Monitoring Program Plan would be required. The implementation of water quality
Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required in accordance the NPDES General
Permit. Based upon the implementation of standard engineering requirements and
compliance with requirements of the SWPPP and BMPs, water quality impacts would be
reduced to below a level of significance. See Section F of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Noise
To assess the potential noise impacts of the proposed project, a noise study was prepared by
DUDEK & Associates, Inc., entitled Saint Pius X Church Expansion Project -
Environmental Noise Assessment, dated September 1,2005. The noise assessment analyzed
the project with respect to the regulations contained in Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards
and Noise Control, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (noise control ordinance).
Noise associated with the project proposal would include short-term construction noise,
student noise at outdoor playground area, noise from vehicles in the parking lot, outdoor
mechanical equipment and traffic noise on adjacent streets.
Construction Noise
Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, construction work in
residential zones that generates noise disturbing to persons residing or working in the vicinity
is not permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between
10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, except when necessary for emergency repairs
required for the health and safety of any member of the community. Due to the presence of
residential development in the surrounding area, this provision of the Municipal Code applies
. to the project and would ensure that residents would not be disturbed by construction noise
during the most noise sensitive periods of the day.
Outdoor Playground Activity Noise
The project does not propose to increase student enrollment and improvements to the school
facilities would not alter outdoor activities associated with the school. Noise from the
playground area is anticipated to remain unchanged thus having a less than significant
impact.
Parking Lot Noise
The proposed project contains parking facilities for 243 vehicles including the construction
of new parking spaces along the western perimeter of the site adjacent to existing single-
family residences. The analysis concluded that the noise level would exceed the City's noise
regulations during the nighttime hours (weekdays - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., weekends 10:00
p.m. to 8:00 a.m.). The noise impacts associated with the parking lot are considered
significant and mitigation measures are proposed in Section F below.
6
Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment is proposed to be located on the
roofs of the structures. The noise generated by the machinery would vary depending on the
type and size of the mechanical equipment. Based on the preliminary plans and mechanical
equipment list, the noise assessment concluded that noise generated from the HV AC would
exceed the City's noise standards. Noise impacts related to the outdoor mechanical
equipment are considered significant. The mitigation proposed in Section F of this Mitigated
Negative Declaration must be implemented in order for impacts to be reduced to below a
level of significance.
Traffic Noise
The projected traffic noise impacts associated with increased traffic volumes along East
Naples Street, Cuyamaca Avenue and Emerson Street and at the project site were assessed in
the noise analysis. The report concluded that the minimal increase in traffic volume would
have a less than significant impact on noise.
Transportation/Traffic
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the project, Traffic
Impact Analysis for Proposed St. Pius X Church Expansion, January 14, 2004, was prepared
by Darnell & Associates Inc. The project does not propose additional school activities or an
increase in student population therefore no increase in weekday pear hour traffic is
anticipated.
The proposed church expansion is projected to generate approximately 57 new average daily
trips (ADTs). The new ADTs include one (1) inbound/outbound trip projected to occur
during the morning peak hour and 2 inbound/outbound trips to occur during the evening peak
hour. The nearby intersections of Naples/Hilltop, Naples/Cuyamaca, Emerson/Hilltop and
Emerson/Cuyamaca currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) B or better. The
existing roadway segments that were studied included Naples between Hilltop and
Cuyamaca, Emerson between hilltop and Cuyamaca and Cuyamaca between Naples and
Emerson, all operating at LOS A.
The traffic impact analysis demonstrated that the intersections and street segments operate at
acceptable levels with or without the proposed project. In addition the proposal would have
no significant peak hour impacts to intersections or on nearby roadway segments. The
project currently has adequate access from Cuyamaca Avenue and Naples Street. Internal
circulation would be improved as a result of the proposed building configuration and the
parking lot layout. The access does not generate significant new traffic onto local streets due
to the church expansion.
No significant traffic impacts will result from the proposed church expansion project.
Parking
The project proposes the addition of 67 new parking spaces resulting in a total of 243 parking
spaces to accommodate the church and school facilities. The project applicant has submitted
a seating chart and parking analysis for the proposed sanctuary/auditorium that establishes a
7
seating capacity of 852 within the expanded facility. Based on the proposed seating capacity
a minimum of 243 parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. The analysis concluded that the 243 parking spaces as shown on the
proposed site plan would meet the on-site parking ratio and no additional parking would be
necessary. No significant parking impacts will result from the proposed project.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air 9uali ty
1. The following aIr quality mitigation measures implemented during grading and
construction:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
e) Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment
f) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
g) Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust
h) Pave permanent roads a quickly as possible to minimize dust
i) Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if
available
j) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a
construction site prior to public road entry
k) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
1) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence
m) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred
n) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads
0) Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off
during hauling
p) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles
per hour
The air quality mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans
and details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in
advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Cultural Resources
2. A qualified historical consultant shall provide documentation that records the historical
significance of the church building and its relationship to the rest of the complex. The
documentation shall record the existing condition before alterations occur, during
demolition as the physical changes occur, and after completion of the construction and
renovations. Photographs shall be taken from the same views and the locations for the
8
photographs shall be subject to the approval of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Specific documentation requirements are as follows:
a) Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit or any construction permits,
documentation of the existing condition shall be prepared and shall include:
. One aerial photograph (to be found by electronic media), showing the
existing layout of buildings in relation to each other.
. One each overall contextual view of the church building in relation to its
existing surroundings looking from each elevation of the church,
. One view of each elevation of the church building documenting its
existing configuration
. One view of each entry
. Representative views of all windows
. Views of all architectural details, including but not limited to roofline,
Mission Revival elements, lighting fixtures, finishes, hardware, decorative
motifs, etc.,
. Interior views including overall interior, elevation views from each
direction, alter area, and all areas to be physically changed.
b) Documentation during construction shall be prepared from the same views and in
accordance with the requirements identified above for mitigation measure 2(a).
c) Prior to final building permit inspection documentation after construction shall be
prepared from the same views and in accordance with the requirements identified
above for mitigation measure 2(a).
All photographic documentation shall include three (3) copies at a minimum size of 5" x
7" using 35 mm film (in either black and white print or color), mounted two photos per
page onto archival sleeves or cardstock. The three sets of photographs shall be bound and
indexed with description of photograph, date, accession number, and photographer's
name. The front of the photographs shall have a Title Page and description of the
proposed project and description of reason for documentation. Of the three required
copies of the documentation, one bound copy shall remain in the possession of the church
and made available to the public, one copy shall be sent to the South Coastal Information
Center at San Diego State University, and one copy shall be given to a local historical
library or repository (local library or historical society) as approved by the Environmental
Review Coordinator (ERe) and to be made available to the public.
3. An interpretive brochure, display, and report that documents the relevant history of the
church shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
This requirement shall be met prior to occupancy.
a) The interpretive brochure shall include:
. The history of the church, its architecture and physical history;
. A history of all physical alterations made to the buildings since their
original construction;
. Sufficient text and photos to adequately document these items;
The brochure shall be made available to the parishioners and public.
9
b) The display shall include:
. Historic and recent photographs of the church;
. Written text on the history of the church;
. A model of the old and new church;
. Sufficient text, photos, and interpretive props to adequately document and
interpret these concepts.
The display shall be provided within a permanent public space of the church complex
(not necessarily limited to the church building itself).
c) The report shall include written documentation on:
. The history of the church (to include inception of the church at this
location, growth of parish, its relationship with the community, its
architecture and physical history):
. The existing physical setting of the church complex and surrounding area;
. Any physical alterations previously undertaken or proposed to the church
complex;
. The proposed expansion and renovation project
. All of the information gathered during the preparation of the brochure and
display (mitigation measures 3a and 3b).
One copy of the report shall be provided to the City of Chula Vista, one copy shall be
given to a Chula Vista library or repository (local library or historical society) as
approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC), and one copy shall be
available to the public at the church.
Geology and Soils
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the final
grading plans comply with the recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Investigation
Study including an Erosion Control Plan. All recommendations/measures shall be
incorporated into the project design and construction documents. Compliance with said
study shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5. During any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement
contractor shall perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance with all
applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
Hydrology/Water Quality
6. A hydrology study shall be submitted with grading plans and shall demonstrate that the
post-development flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flow rate.
7. A Water Quality Technical Report shall be prepared and shall identify potential
pollutants generated at the site during the post-development phase of the project and shall
10
identify/propose appropriate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to minimized discharge of such pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
8. In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Permit, a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed and implemented
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the grading
or construction plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction related
and permanent, post-construction water quality best management practices (BMPs).
10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary de silting and erosion control devices
shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to
prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected
in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Noise
11. A minimum five-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the western property
boundary or alternatively, the hours of operation at St. Pius X shall be modified so that
activities at the site occur only during the hours of7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays,
and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends.
12. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related
construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
13. Prior to approval of building permits for the development the applicant shall submit a
subsequent noise study to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator
demonstrating that the final roof-mounted HV AC and other roof mounted equipment
complies with the City's noise control ordinance at the property boundaries of 45 dBA
Leq (one hour) during nighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq (one hour) during daytime hours
or ambient noise levels, whichever is greater.
14. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners on the school and/or church complex
buildings shall include appropriate noise abatement and be screened by a minimum three-
foot high rooftop parapet that blocks the line-of-site view from the backyards of the
nearby residential properties to the exposed roof and mechanical ventilation systems.
The noise mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and
building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and/or shall be made conditions of
proj ect approval where appropriate.
11
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building
Steve Power, Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Planning and Building
Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building
Gerald Moorer, RBF Consulting
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Dave Kaplan, Engineering
Sandra Hernandez, Engineering
Beth Chopp, Engineering
Mark Caro, Parks and Recreation
Justin Gipson, Fire Department
Jessica Madson, Fire Department
Richard Preuss, Police Department
Dave Byers, Public W orks/Ops.
ApplicantIProperty Owner:
Hal Gardner/CFO - Catholic Diocese of San Diego
Reverend Joseph G. Masar, St. Pius Church
Applicant Agent:
Daniel D. White, Architect
Others:
Sweetwater Authority
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Cheryl Johnson, RECON
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 1989 (as amended)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Final Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Findings of Effect Report (FOE),
Galvin & Associates, August 2005
12
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements to Saint Pius Church,
1120 Cuyamaca Avenue, Chula Vista, California, Construction Testing & Engineering,
Inc., January 17,2003
Saint Pius X Church Expansion Project - Environmental Noise Assessment, DUDEK &
Associates, Inc., September 1, 2005
Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed St. Pius X Church Expansion, Darnell & Associates
Inc., January 14,2004
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any
comments received to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental
review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~~~~
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: I jJla,
I (
J:\Planning\MaryV\St. Pius\IS-04-028 mnd21tLdoc
13
Castle Park
Elementarv
School
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR ~~ St. Pius Catholic Church
fT\ ~.: 1120CuyamacaAvenue
\J ~ FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale 18-04-028
AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
INITIAL STUDY
Request: Proposal for expansion of church facilities.
Related cases: DRC-04-53, PC~.
Exhibit A
J:\planninglcarlos\lo<:alorslis04028.cdr 05.24.04
TRASH ENCLOSURE
PARKING
STANDARD 214
COMPACT 22 EB
HANDICAP 7
TOTAL 243
REQUIRED 243
"='
@
Exhibit B
ATTACHMENT A
MJTIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MN[RP)
St Pius X Catholic Church, 18-04-028.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed St. Pius X Catholic Church project. The proposed project has
been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (IS-04-028) prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
Guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures
are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Air Quality
2. Cultural Resources
3. Geology and Soils
4. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5.. Hydrology and Water Quality
6. Noise
7. Traffic
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator, and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures
specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-028 shall be provided by the applicant to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-04-028, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the IJ.?ethod and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J :\PIanning\Mary V\St. Pius\IS-04-028mmrtext. doc
E
co
'-
c::
~
c::
o
:2:
c::
09
co
:;::
~
<XJ
N
o
I
'<:t
o
rh
~
u
'-
::J
~
U
><
en
::J
0::
u5
~
Q)
.0
n:s
I-
tI)
'E
Q)
E
E
o
o
'C
Q)
Q)
'C.
E
o
u
(l)
ro
o
'"
~
.c
:!:
<(
c:::
t)
o
a:::
0-
C)
Z
~
a:::
o
0-
W
a:::
C
z
<(
C)
z
a:::
o
!::
z
o
:!:
z
o
~
C)
I-
:!:
Q)
:a
.iii >-
c:t:
o 01
c.a,
'"
Q)
c::
....c:
o.!:!
C11i'i
c: u
'E !E
j::~
....c:
00
"C+=
o ~
.e 0-
Q)~
:iEQ)
>
0>
C
:g
'S
CD
~'C
gfii
cO>
ro c
.~.c ~
CiCa.
a.~ (l)
<(11..0
-.;
"' "'
00
n.u
><
"'';
C "'
~-c
::J 0
cu
><
..Vi
.. c
n.o
u
><
:iE
t-=
2c
,- 0
~~
U (l)
C(l)a.
ro.r: '"
O:uE
'CO>
(l)C
c=O
(l) ro
Ea
(l)
Ci=
E ro
0- C
<I) 0
.0",
- (l)
roo
~c
~ ~
~~
~ ~
(1)-
Ea.
c'C
oc
:;::: ro
~c
~O
'E~
:::J
O)~
c '"
'35
.Qu
:E~U)
<l)oc: C
.:: -5 -a. ro
<I)
Ci
:;:::
"'3
E
'0
C
o
~cn
Q)~
a.c
o :::J
"'c
:::J<I)
f6&
c._
01 :::J
==0-
:::J <I)
E c
'00 0
CD!S
.t::! :::J
E~
,- '"
c c
~8
c OJ
<I) U
&15
"3 ~
0- a.
<I) '"
c ro
o
t5
2
U;
c
o
U
0>
C
E
'E
<I)
.!.
c
ro
:2
o
a.
:;:
.Q
<I)
'"
:J
~u=c
c
<I)
E
a.
':;
0-
<I)
c
,Q
U c
2 0
1i) t5
c :::J
o 'C
U ~
ro
U
oc:
U
<I)
a:;
<I)
'"
:J
'C
~
<I)
:;:
o
a.
cb
oS:
o
'"
ro
0)
...
.E
g
>,-
-c
ro <I)
lOE
Ua.
(1)--
'" :::J
:Jg-
'C
~
<I)
:;:
o
?-
a:;
'"
<I)
'C
...
.E
"E
ro
~
0)
c
~
c
o
:We
~ <I)
:5'&
Q)"5
~g-
0)
(l)
N
.E
'c
'E
.8
.?o
Om
'C
<I)
U
~
ro
<I)
Cii
C
.Q
U
2
u;
c
0_
u '"
~-5
-Q)
0>.:::
10::::
:5:.2'
c-
.8
(l)
:c
'00
'"
o
a.
'"
01
>,
32
U
':;
0-
'"
ro
~cn
Q) :::J
ro'C
'CQ)
w:E;
'C --
roO)
... :::J
0)-
Q) (l)
Not::!
=E
:c ,-
01 C
en 'E
-a;
.8
Q)
:c
'00
'"
o
a.
'"
01
>,
32
U
':;
0-
'"
01
'"
'C
01
e
c
Q)-
c '"
ro :::J
E'C
~.~
(l).~
~,s:
I1..E
:2
<I)
:c
.!!?
_ "05
0>
ro
'C _
roo-
<I) -
_0)
",C
,S: 'C
",=
Q):::J
_.0
00)
~.5
Q) ...
:;:-5
0",
a....
E.8
o I:!
~Q)
>,c
;:::(1)
UO)
E~
u ro
Q) ...
a:; 8.
Q) E
'" Q)
:J_
'0.9
Q)'"
Q),Q
;;a.
OQ)
T"'" ::::
-'"
~a
~t5
_:::J
~t;
ro c
a.8
15 ro
...c
o~~
:5:;:
ro.r:
U; 10 ~
~~c
,- Q) Q)
~~-g
-5~e
>,cu
Q.CB:E
a.- :::J
<(.s: a.
.-
,~
C
o
a.
ro
'C
<I)
>
ro
a.",
ro'C
o ro
-e
c U
(1)=
u.o
OI:::J
'0 a.
ro c
en 0
:v~
.r:c
~ Q)
:;:2
_u
(1).-
<I).r:
.r:<I)
:;: >
-.8
lYi5
~-c::
_ a.
~
,!:!
:c
::J
a.
'C
Q)
a:;Q)
> g
~~
o :s
];8
:;~
90
TI~
rn-
... :::J
;.5
:cE
"Ci5o
05 C')
>, ,S:
c.e
rn::::
Q):;:
>21
0Q)
~~
C::ii)
'0
'C
C
<I)
Q)'C
.eQ)
- >
-ro
rna.
- c
,S: ::J
o C
a.o
en-
en Q)
Q) >
U rn
U~
rn (l)
c-
o,!:!
:;.c
~~-g
->,...
'" c ...
a co a
~~g
.ern'"
-'COI
.ci:-C
'" 0 '"
01 :;: <I)
:;: .r: ~
Q)~~
:5:(1)",
~
E
'"
'C
ro
o e
- u
0=
....0
-::J
Ca.
80
cc
00
"Ci) -
o,~
:Va>
"'10
"*E
E~
.~ "00
a.-
_ 0
c-
Q) :::J
.- 0
~~
~ ~
Q)-
'Cc
'5 ~
0(1)
cl:Ci
'2
<)
OJ)
cQ
a..
'0
'"
Q)
.r:
u
,S: g>
N=
.,... ::J
_ ro
",.r:
rn 0>
2 c
10 .~
c'C
]j~
,S: ~
ro 0
E:c
(; ~
en ::J
TI~
2 ...
-0
~~
.r:ro
... 0
(1).0
> <I)
0(1)
u~
'C
Q)
>
ro
a.
c
::J ...
C ::J
00
_.r:
g?:v
grn
'C<I)
c:::=
rn E
Q)LO
gN
OI'C
.oQ)
... Q)
::J U
~~
'C",
'5-g
~'3
ro~
'Cen
c Q)
Q) U
a.rn
"''t:
~~
0'
c:
E
ro
....
.s:
g
c:
o
~
c:
o
:g
:;:::
~
00
N
o
..,;.
o
rh
J::
U
...
::J
J::
o
><
en
::J
0::
U5
......
Q)
.c
ItS
I-
CD
0::
ii
.S
ID
.2:'1:1
~~
0:: CD
'" 0::
.~'c .
-0::-
8:~ g.
<(0..0
_...J
11>. II> X
0,0
D..U
OJ,
.g;,~ X
::10
CU
.-.-
II>
e5 X
D..U
0::
,Q
t5
Q)
Q)e.
~r/)
Ci5E
agJ3~m-gQ)u~
""'6f-.E CD'" ~~1ii
E=S ~ffic::VJ~.5:
Q,)",C. ..cOQ) "E
E.c X c u"".c Q) 0..
::JuJ1,g-U~.cO~
u :s E-'6'~ E E 'ffi () 0
.g-588~~~~~:g
~Q) e.8cr/).5r/)
'5':;(1)0)0) Q).t:Q)C'O
eO=:s:5 Q)~ ~a:: ~
e.Q).... r/) r/):5 CDro
= u o.x ro Q) .9 ~ .!!J
~ffi.....Q)ao.c~ffiffi
r/)~gjQ)"" =e.EE
C~L;..:6~a~Q)6~
J9 CDQ)1:J E"" r/):S.!:::.:s
"5'Ci3:6 '-8 Q)~1! '- ~ 0-
r/)- 1:Ie.e..EwaJ
8 .g .9 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ aJ g
-.9c..=ro:J 8>2:5:o::J
~.!!2:C.c1:J....15 N'OJ9
.t::..c~CIJ.....~Q)..co ffi
.9aJo ::J1ijCL-roE
.!!2:5"" 58 aJ>=>
.cr/)~""01:Ju:i:seu
16"E f!! ~ ~ ~ 51:J 8:.g
!E8.!!JQ)0 ",,~rou
roe--Ef6~~CI)Q)~
5-1ii1:J G Q; G g 3=:S aJ
<(:S ~.g~ g ~'~.9~
('oj
CD ~5 ~~ ~ ~E ~~
~.5 g~ ~~ ~ ~..c,_~~~B
rot) g.!:: u..Q ~ i5:='~.9c(J)
c;'~ Qj (jj g aJ r/).c CD.!!i aJ.,g aJ
~Q)-g>..E:5g 2 .5a5~~ro
E~UD~ ~~ E ~Eo~-
&'051:10 o=> u ~Q)EaJro
cc~~~ ~e ~c .5~~~~
.Q g ~ -E g, .Q)>- ~ :6 g ~ ui (ij ~ .~ ffi
:ro ro ro >->....~
o""'um- _~~O:J o'ffi'50C~
Eio::.cCD ro-"" ~~aJu-Q)
aJEro 0:: =>~=>o::g ~1:IOC~~ro""
1:10"" x'x{3,gc > ~-
~~~~.~ sQ)Q)~8 C'Oro8~~~
a .g ~ -a. aJ 0::8 ~:S Q) CD .". a 2u.... :~ ~ CD ro
aJ - aJ ro aJ. 0 a (jj.E <... 1:J 0::
U~~~:5~-""'c..c~C~~~roBC .
C~Q)O :5rocoux.cQ).~~~..c~u~~
~~..coc)o~o:o::JroQ) >'- u~
CI)&=..c.5..c>~~Q)~~Q)C'O~g.5~g
'~c~~~~o~~oC)~~=8~CI)~~
Q)OVJ(ij..cQ)..c Q) ~OSrn'-'2~..cu
~~c't::VJB~.5-5~c~c~O~"5U~
o~~~~c~oro.~~wmo-~~ro~
-~~ roo cw>E"5w~~mOmu
~~~~~~~~EmBw~I~~"~E.~
~88oE~oE~6.g6~>~~E~-a.
CiI
. . .
1:IaJaJ
~fi:s
ro r/)
e..c aJ
~] E
aJ Q) 0::
.cuo
0::""
=roro
~"Eg
r/) 8.-
cuE
o ell""
~c.g
2"- m
~-g~
8ro~
CDr/)1:I
,~ ~~
:::)"5 "E
1:J Q)
5~:g
""ro.!!J
ro r/) 0::
cmQ)
Q):5E
E f!!
G E 'S..-:.
8~ ~~
:c-
5 aJE.!!J
"" 0::
19roQ)
c r/) E
Q)Q)~
E:S .S
=> r:r
gEf!!~
1:J~aJN
51:1:S f!!
+:J Q) :J
~ffi:sgj
e. e.,- aJ
~f!!3=E
.- e.
""aJ~5
E.cc""
aJ _ ro @j,
0. co "E .,
OJ.c 8'E
0:: r/) U
:.ac:::roC5
= 0 .....
::J +:J c::: Q)
:: ~'- ~
~U)-g.g
~C:ro~
.9 8 c21
o1-~~
"C::.m"~ ~
CLro>._
u
N
OJ
OJ)
<<:I
c..
~g~~~-gco
E15.c3=ro~
Q> ..c: - R
~iE 0.Q)~ Q)~
.cEO.cx.ce.
:E~f-~g~
1:1 It) 1:J -" .f: 0:: 8'
~C"")$ u co
g ~5~-g.Q-E.
='Cijo"Ero~Q)
ro=>Ero1:JaJ.c
L:= ~u58::
CI).......o~octJo
cxoo..c R_
0= ur/) aJC
~~o~2~~
"Eo_Q>_ RQ)
aJaJc.gjro.c.c
E.t:,!'~ .c e.f-
:::)cn ro(l)~
UEaJ>r/)CDCIi
o "":C.coE
"t):::)..c:uo.75cu
uE3=""ro.co::Q)
"- "c ""C ro 1- a.
.c ._ c 0 CD rn ro
g-E cuc-50RQiD...
encutj O..c c:..c:~
0- ro Q) c.. 0 a.:::
75::0 ~oE.~t;
-a.."~ CD c.. CI) <:3 .s Q)
c...c: 1- _ (/) 0 >
<( 8'ijj &~~-a.~
E
ro
...
c
';::
g
c
o
Z
c
o
~
:.;:::
~
.c:
'-'
....
:J
.c:
o
X
rn
:J
0::
u)
~
(1)
..c
ctI
I-
t"1
'"
OJ)
'"
c..
~-g-g.92~~~~
"""':J CtJ-lB o'C:":;:-
-o.8.c: ij5(1)-.82.8
UOJOroOJu...
~~Q)g> :c_~
c:o-5.co.9o.!9-g
o _ = c_
1ij 81!~ ~ ij5 c:-CU'(ij
c;;..... cncn.2: ~ ~ ~
Q,),$.....:>.- C)..c 0
ECoo.ro ::,=CU
i3~88(u~ro~~
o:J"iijcuc ,-,wE
"g:iJ8c3'iijgcucu
.E -0 ~ c5 c ~ ~:5 .c
1! 8.::,2 >0,.8 >0,0
a- .groa..Ci5.c.....
OJ-CUo.EoO "
ra 0:6 '- () c..-o c
Q>CI) a>.E ~Q)ro
.:: .~ .5 € .s ~ '- E; _
o8-co-oo...O
"- - ro 0. a::
cUE cuen" c:-o.w
2~Q):iS~~~rn-
.g.!::: "- ~ <..> g ~ 0
~ 6-=ro ~:6~- co
Q) ~ ~ co 5 .~ ~ '>;.5 .
U Q) >. Q) en ~'~]2 "E g
"'C Q) a.-g Q)'-- 0 0.0
~:5 8 E:5:5:E g8 5.
E
CI]
....
"2
g
c::
o
::;E
c::
o
~
:;:::
~
.r::.
u
....
:J
.r::.
(.)
><
en
:J
0::
u5
Q)
c
'2
.S
(D
~"O
~~
C 0)
'" c
~'c -
:-c.........
0.",0.
0._ (1)
<(1l..0
x
x
.....
Q)
.0
CIS
I-
x
c
.2
t5
(1)
(1)0.
~ '"
.- c
cn_
.$ '"
~(1):C
E:51-
B.9cs
~~~
roro~
:5 0.....
t~g:>.
o 0.0 u
o.(1)~ffi
~ ~ (],) g.
-g }g .~ 8
"'",0:::0
~-5 ~ B
a.::; Co
.!Q -5 ~'I::
"'C~ Q) co ~
Q) ..c 10- Q)
:s ::: 'S: E
.cOI::(1)
g ~w.c
lo-oQJ=
.c~:5ro
~~-~
~c~c
e.~~ E
2~~~
.5 ~ 't5 '5
~~~~
<'i
ro (1) C
u -E Q.)
'(jj E
~ B a
0. 0
"0 (I) "0
C "0
'" ro >,
(I) E OJ
:s Cl)g~
..13 g:go-
~~ ""2~
:J..c ~.... co
u~ 2~
cro roSB
.- ,gJ '"
ro ro roc 0
~.c.~ 0 .- "'0
~ ~ '~.Q1.c.
:J.c ..c (; Co
-5 u 0.'16 -g
e~ ro= ro
.c~ Q)
(1)>0 'Qucx
""~ ._2.;
~B ~~c~
e-.!Q '>.B :? (I):!:::
(I) .c L. ,'" ,_ .u (I)
~<l)~.c;g~~
~~:C<(..5cn:5
I-
roe
.
.
~
(I)
C
o
:c
'"
'I::
ro
0.
(I)
:5
B
(I)
15
~
'~
ro U
~J5
ro ::J
E~
~ffi
Cii
.c
'"
~
::J
.c
U
e
.c
(I)
.c
I-
B
~.!!i
00.
C:iB
-5 I::
:s ~ 8
..c ':.;:;Q)
U.- ~ en
(I) -5 e- (I)
:53,.(1):5
o-5-Qca5
~~E~e-
c.-ucJY
~ '0 ~ ro ,S;
8'~(I) .-g
a;o.9~~ro
-g-E.~ffi~~
uC(I)"Oo.E
;;B:5O__i3
ro~6~~.g
~"C_....
~ffi~o_~
~u-:;IDmro
5}.I::(I)"O'u::J
.- B :t:: OE !i: 0'
"'CrJ)'C :::JQ)
~I3<(cn-g
I-
:c....
(I)
.c
u~
.- 0
:c~
::J'O
o..sa
c'E
(1)=
C>,
t13=t:
g ro
(I)'"
c.'"
ro B
c::(I)
,_ C
.c ~
js
'Ox
(1)(1)
'0 -
'~ ~
5.S..:-
(I).c-
.cu(l)
=3,gJ
Jg -5 :?
'" .-
>,(1)'0
~:5'5
~o .c
'6B~
(I) ro ::J
.c o..c
I-",u
~~rJ ii3 0 6~
-t/)'- C5.. :;I
oa~ E ~ ~~
C6~a. S ~ tsg.~
o~~"C TI Q) .~a.~
6~,gJffi ~ -g 5.(I)E
~c~ ~:J C:5C
\U .- ..c Q) ()
C Q) en 10- ~ 2 ~g
Q.) "C 'C .3 Q) en co .= ro
E::Jrou :5 ::J i)3g
:J 13 a. 2 0 C -0 ._
g.~o~ '0 '5x~"O.s.
"0 ...... ~~-
O-Ern en c.a."'C~~
c::~S: ~ EC(l)ro
(I).co .... "'0"':50..
~f2~~ ~ c:ucrocn
'~:J - _ . _ 2 -5 .Q c:n:e;
~-56if .~~~3~a"O
::J(I)~3 g:,"d'-5~~ffi
g:5C;E .cQ)ro Xg(l)
:..._- _0 - E 0..5 - ~ ~ 0 :;
ro .!Q S Q)'O rJ- (I)""".c
..c ~-E .5 5 'en.9 rn .5 u
t/) 0..... en 0 >'"0 & Q) e
t::1i5 co Q)~.- t::..c Q) o..c..c-:..
&:E-5:6 ~~ 55 c.~ 0..: CDg
~ (I) 3:5B (1)'0 >'8- Q) 0,s'O
..c ..c .- .~ .c. c:: r::::: '- ..c =:;; __ c::
~I- u ~.cl- ro<( a.1-..... 0 '"
I-
-u.
.
. .
.
-.:t
<U
bJ)
0:1
c..
~ E
.cL.'O
OO(l)~
'O~i)o
~~ c..~ .
G@ 1irffi-5
Q)j9cn-,::;
:5 ,!Q ~~ -5
B > ~W Q)
'0 ~ .!!1 ~:5
~.@go"'"
'50"'ro~
ero~.S;J5
a. 0 .- "E ::J
Q)~08o.
~~]10~
ro._.c ~_
~ ~ 0 .~ .9
t.c ~1ii~
8. ~ ~ 0::: 1iJ
~1)5@~'ffi
~ ~~ ~ ~
'OSg~~
~~ ~o,g~
So~>.c
11) S'~ tTI ~
c",o.(I)o.
O>~:5S
E
t1J
I-
....
c:
';::
.8
'c
0
2
c:
0
~
:;::
~
0) 0)
.~ C
C .C::
C C
CIJ CIJ
>.i5: ~Q;
(3 D> ~c U O)g'c:
:;:,.~.- (lJ ~'E TI CD
c(j)gE CIJ (lJ= E
g.~ci5 ~ UCD:Jt::
=.~ co CIJ
0.. O)u 0.. 0.. 0) U 0..
a.CcQ) o..Cc(lJ
<1:WClJO <1:WClJO
-.- -.-
'" '" III",
00 00
Cl.t) Cl.t)
01.- 01.-
'2 III c '"
c X :; c X
:::I 0 0
Ct) Ct)
...... .- GJ<<;;
'" III
Q) !l: c x ~ c X
0 Cl. 0
.!J t) t)
res
I-
:E :E
...: ...:
2 c
.- 0
~~
U (lJ
C(lJo..
~.cCfJ
o..OE
.
en
-'
6
en
o
z.
<C
>-'
(!)
o
-',
o
w
(!)
q -5: ~ <( ~ $ ffi .~
o E"C:: c'- a5 ct
~ 8 -5 ~ -g E E 8. '.
-- CDQ...--BL..Q)
w~oo~o8.C!::
~coQ)L..O-o "'0
E Ci (!) c: e- ro c
(j) 0)- 0 8 c Q) ro
o.."~ ~ 0 c:.Q E 0)
0"'0'- C'--U 0 c
c ~ LL .Q Q) ::J ~ .~ ~'(.
:a C)CD ~.c~.o~ <(
~ ro :5 w = c =:5 0::'
CI ~.... c: ~ 8 ~ :2 W:
i:(lJOrorJ) rJ)c ~;,
ro:5 :g g' ~ -g ~g:2:
a rn .Q :g ::; ro ~ ~ ~':::~.'.'
Q):5ro13~ :e...J
Uc >. -g .S Q) 6> :Ero :2 0
ro t;:. Q) >..€.(j) rJ) Q) 0
~ g?~:a ~~E: .~+.
'-~8C/)~.....~o ~,.
~~~.Q-g~~c ~
- I- Q)ro Q)'O'C ~ E 0
.9 :E:5 .21 E C5. ~ Q) ro c::<
o 'g,.c: ~ ~ E'S ~~.
'C;: c;:: > U Q) 0 cr e :c(-:
o..W3:E~:50~0..:I:
.c:
t)
I-
:J
.c:
o
><
tJ)
:J
0::
2c
.- 0
~~
UQ)
CCl)o..
ro .c: rJ)
i5:oE
0)
C
.C::
C
ro
>.i5:
C3 a~"E:
:;:,.~"- (lJ
c(j)gE
g.~~~
8:g'u g
<1:W~O
~_u;
Cl.8
.
01.-
C:cn
'~r6 x
Ct)
...
(b'1n
0:"5 x
t)
:E
...:
....
...
2c
,- 0
st2..
.>c::U
c U Cl)
CIJ(lJo..
i5:<3.s
0)
c
.c
c
CIJ
c~
U O)g'c:
:;:,.~.- (lJ
c(j)gE
.~ ~ a3 ~
0.. '0,"0 0..
o..Cc(lJ
<1:WClJO
x
x
x
2c
,- 0
~t5
U Cl)
C(lJo..
~.c:rJ)
o..oE
0)
c
.c
c
CIJ
~@;
U O)g'c:
:;:,.~.- (lJ
c:(j)gE
.~ ~ ~ ~
0.. "0,"'0 a..
CLCcCD
<1:WClJO
x
x
x
2 c
"- 0
en "-
~t5
U Cl)
C:Cl)0..
CIJ.c: rJ)
i5:oE
OJ
C
'c
c
CIJ
~Q;
U Clg'c:
:;:,.~.- (lJ
c:(j)gE
~.~ ~~
0.. O)U 0..
Q.CcO)
<1:WClJO
x
x
x
V)
-gE~-g:5:5
<B.g ffi cu~~
]1:g,"ErJ)'5~
~ 83:0..Q)
'-=u.!5! 0
"'0 ro co .=
~ ~ .S ~ <( ..Q
~ 0 c ~ -E"E
:gg~~5.g
~-E2"'OO@
--actS!:: .....
ro u.g CIJ 8>en :>-..'
cncc.s'~ I ~
,gCl)'ro2o~ :J
'5 E 0.. rJ) C ~ ~.
t52-o -c?J~ O~
CIJ jg ~ ro ~ a::.
:5C1Jjg~g'Q) w
:e-g-6 '63 ~.
OCl)CIJ..91,2C:: ~;
E - ..91 .g g u g >-<=,...
Cl)-e-e U'-.-,-
-0 C C = .:= ni C!Jr
>. CIJ CIJ 8: en"!!? > 0:'
~rJ)rJ)ro:5og-':
00 :;:;- Cl) o.
.~-m]i ~.!5! g a: ~~:.
5~~ 5,:5-g>-
o ro CIJ.9 ~O CIJ:I:.'
:g ~
~o;::
','- _ C) C a>
cCl)-
"< '6 E ~
...... CIJ 0.. 3:
.. a.2 0
::,<::,; E ~~
3: "9 Cl)
-eUjE
Cl)oa.
:= a..Q
'E Q) g?
.c.c:(lJ
:J--e
: 10 ~
.c -5 0-
Cl)
ro2:5
~~~
~:g~
.a~~
rJ)Q)_
>.-e 0
CI c:
0= en
e~:g
~tJ)-e
.c-eCl)
<(~~
(l)
OJ)
'"
p..,
2 c
,- 0
~~
U Cl)
C(lJa.
CIJ .c: rJ)
i5:oE
~~~~B~ e5~o ~a~w~~
ro~roc_E c5rn_ O~oErn~
i~~-e~~ 8~ua5 Cl)2~O-e
ro _c:2E rJ)o..&E :5Uja:::5lb
~-ernm ~. Q~ C --_--
~roa.__Q) ;::a;(1)C ~-8-~ar~~
0..-gQ)~ :5 6ro~~ E~oa::c~
~ ro :5 15 ~ .9 rJ) :s: -e E & 0::= 0 ,Q
_~-~_~~ ~ 0 ~ro~~~
~co~a- E(1)u ~_~Oo-2S
~~ ~roC ~~~ cu~O-rn
~~~ ~~ 2B_w ~~oc~~
~oo~~ ~ ~oorn~ ~o~ro8
8. c a. oc _ ~ > ~ CD Q) a en c 0
(lJro_o..C Cl)ro:5 .c:'- -00-=
~~ceQ)~ - -"5 rn_'~E-~~
=Cl)o..Eu 2.0..:> ...._>CIJ_u
rooEa.Cl)~ en~o.. oCIJeou2:2
,S!o..a.CIJ~.... Eo..c: :5o..co&Uj@
c:-O cO ~Q):S:(lJ Cl) Q)-rJ)Cen
TI~~~~Q) -~oo~ g~=g~8~
~2~~ ~ E_-g ~~~a~~~
~o~e_~~~mco~~>3030~
~o..rJ)o..rJ)u.c U~UCl)~=:> :>0..5
ro~8.~~~~~~o..-e~Cl)~~~_ -
O~Q)~ ~~ffi~c2~~~E~9~~
i~:5~~J~~-~~;.918a~!;
ro C) -Ec8"'OCDQ)o5 c~QjNraro'
:s:=~=u_Q)CIJ~>--eo5C:- Ec
~~~~"5~ o~~E~'~c~~ci~ro
Cen-erJ)rJ)EQ)Ecoo.._Bo..wa.>zo..E
.. ,..........
...
............ '....
...' cD r--: cO ai
-i u) .
. .',
..' '.
...
U5
E
(IJ
~
.S
.9
'E
o
~
c::
o
~
:;:;
~
IX)
N
o
..t-
O
dJ
.c
u
~
::J
.c
U
X
rJ)
::J
0::
u5
01
e
.c
e
ro
>,Q
5Ci>g>c
:;::, .s;-- <J)
c....""O,-
~~~~
= .~ CO ro
a. 01" a.
a.ccQ.}
<{WroO
x
.....
Q)
..0
CO
I-
x
2c
.- 0
CI) .-
-. -
-'" u
ea5~
ro.c UJ
QUE
2:' -ci .S.S: ~ ~
~~~~:cO
Oro""ro
0........ '- (1)
E~EEOI.c
Q).-ooQ).......
.......~~U)Ci)Eo
'E1=~~.~5
Q;~~""'~:;
o.cn~gt5~
0) ~ ro'~ ~ :2
.s:u"'C-~ro
-~r~ ~ a5 <J) UJ
Ci)tJ .s> E :: ~
_ooro-
co ,g o..;:..c 0
"-!::Q).....cn.....
oo.acUJUJ
Q)u_Q)~c
uc=E:Jro
~ ,Q ::: '6 ~ 0..
::JCJ)U)ma>.....
UJe~_Ea5
.!!1 <J) -s> c <J) E
<J),,<J)~UJ<J)
.cc"<J)w>
....... co Q) 0.':= e .
OC).~ .Cow
-:a'O.9E_5~
0==2......2 "5
'i::~e~~-gc
0... " 0... .5 UJ ro W
o
~
01 01 01 01
.5 e c -~
~ :2 :2 ~
.5 '5 .5 .5
CO CO CO CO
.c;." .c;." .c;." .c;."
U e- U e- U c- .- c""'"
ro e ro e ro e ~roa3
:;::, <J) :;::, <J) :;::, <J)
e OlE c OlE e OlE e OlE
ro e_ ro e_ ro e~ ro e_
.~ "c ro .~ 'c .... .S2 "c ro .~ "c ro
ro
o..~ a. 8:~ a. 8:~ a. ~~ a.
0._ <J) <J) W w
<{o...o <{o...o <{o...o <{o...o
U;U;x x x x
00
a..u
01..:
.g III
c: X X X X
::I 0
cu
-
'" III
~ c: X X X X \0
0
U
OJ
01)
ro
c...
::;:
r-:
2 e
,- 0
~~
u <J)
Cwo.
ro .c UJ
QuE
"tJ W UJ 0 e
fJ,s~go
.5 ~:fl ~ ~
~~ro.9o.
I 8~~~0
Q)'-.......ro~
..02000
roro~~~
..c'-Q)f'-...o
cno~o""'"
=~"tJ .
i~{g~~~
, ,.. ~5~~
,. .! 5 0 w g
UJ.a><,s ,.
ro UJ co
> E ~.2 g>"tJ
. w 0... 'C c
,.... -5, 0.-: :J ro
',"" :c ~~ ~ _
..; - ro - UJ
, Oc c>,
... ,E....coro
".' I Q) 0 .... "C
. .... W - "" :J-'"
'... '.. J; gj ~ 8 :E
E::: ~o::: ,
:JWow UJ
w:. E:5o~ a-g
cn> :5 01 UJ W ~
cS" Eg3,sE:E
z <{ro~ro 0.:::
..
~
~
2c
-- 0
cn ,-
::>2'0
u W
Cwo.
ro.c UJ
QuE
2 c
-- 0
CI) ,-
::>2'0
c u W
ro ~ g.
QuE
2c
.- 0
CI) --
::>2'0
u w
Cwo.
ro.c UJ
QUE
21 ~ -g g ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ -;:' .~
,>~E>ro.o :::--rne'o..Q.5w
:;::; E -c- co.!:: L.. c ..c >
Q)-"'C~ 0"(1) Q)
~ ~ 0. a3 [€ g -0 ..UJ .3 g :Q
.c cO ~ 0 :Ju"tJ~<{~~
u,Q~'" g!u; ~u~ as _
~g~~en~~~UWLO....J"*
- l:; '0 -0 ~ W '0 'S> ~ :5 ~ <{ >
....UJ c-o.cc2I ....co2
oa~ro5:::_u.........co-oC1)
-- u 5 >. en S &i - 3 ~ .~ ~ "5
~-o.c:Q-o~ 5-~ 0 ro-o c
LOww....~cwwEUJ-occ
~~:5u. (J) ~~ E'15~ 3 ro.~
~~c:..c:~c.::1aec.oU).c
..!,. Q) om CJ)cn '-_ E..c:s E
r-- u ~ g'E c ro'S> ro 0 >,0 ro
<r- .~.G Io....a :.a c: ~ CJ t.c: "-
Ow.cro=_W WwO
5 a..a ~ CI) .6 'E: ~ c g. E f!!
:+::i "'0>' "_-oIV-OJ'-E:J
a5 aiw{g E 0 ~,sro E o..c 0
U) "C:E c: rn (ij '+- 5 .9- Q) ,Q>..c
0'- 00 >= 0 c>:J,s c w
.9 u ~ :2 ~ ~ ~ :a as ro c>,E
- 0. .CO 0. g ~ Q)'2'5..
cCO E'"'Oco.....~....."oo::Jrn
~.g-.8 cO ffi.s ~ ~~.m ffi"C~:ri
cn'-- ......__0 C c:"i::'c.....
.... 5 ro g E .0 0.. ~ E i5 '6 ::> 'C m
cr:2ii3r:..: ci~ g.m~ E o~.g 0,
8fJg~~
..c"t:: ....
~g.gJ8.9
OJ c...c ~
.c 0.- ;: UJ
- ro E w ,w en
5W:J'S>~E
UJ -g.S; 2 g.2
~g.52o.~
0-- E 0 UJ
~ =ro ~ ~ ~ .5
c::.c..o~c:~
8UJ-ow~:;:;
,-acv5'(j)c
co .5 ffi ~ ~ %!
-gg~g>.~
COB CfJ:Q-e"c
~~JJ~~.fi
~a.-g::: c::: Q)
-ErowwE
~8"E ~:5-g
E.c<J)ro....ro
5.~~~oo
Q.Ero 0 UJ e
~u.a'5'E-o
8o~e~~
~ :c .5a "5 -U 8-
<(~g:cjgiij
N
~
cv)
~
-<i
~
ro~ro~
.cW
5~~~
c!Q..E
::: 0.-0 _
o c ro
ii3 .~ ro_ e
Q) :Q 2 c..
.a.5,~ g.
~.ca.
J::-oo.....
rncc..~
-E ro g.'e-
w c; w 0.
E,~ .!!1
.~~ ~o
S- ~~
~ _ -0 ~
c a UJ,Q
0'- co .....
~~,-:g
C>Eoo
EQ)cno
E -0 W ,
Q)Q)oCl>2
.!!1 :c c -g .~
g[3.!Q'Eg.
Q) ~~ a.
.co.wwo.
I-ro-o.aro
~!~
:--.--:
~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
0lY OF
(HUlA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Catholic Diocese of San Diego
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
1120 Cuyamaca Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 420-9193
4. Name of Proposal:
St. Pius X Catholic Church
5. Date of Checklist:
December 15,2005
6. Case No.
IS-04-028
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project
a) Have a substanrial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 .
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 0 0 0 .
not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the exisring visual character or 0 0 0 .
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Less Than
PotentiaUy Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 . 0
Issues:
Comments:
a-b) The project site contains no scenic resources, vistas or views open to the public, and is not in
proximity to a state scenic highway, therefore, there would be no impact to the aesthetics of the
area.
c) The project site is located within a developed single-family residential area that contains limited
commercial uses. The proposed church and school expansion is compatible with the existing
architectural design and would not degrade the visual character of the project site or its
surroundings therefore no impact would occur.
d) The project proposal includes new lighting facilities in the parking lot including lighting
standards a distance of 70 feet from the west property line adjacent to the residences. The project
shall be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (CYMC). Compliance with the regulations will ensure that no substantial
glare or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding area or onto the
adjacent or nearby residential properties therefore no impact would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
Mitie:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Issues:
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Fannland, or
Fannland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Fannland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 0 .
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
a-c) The project site and surrounding land uses are fully developed, consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated farmland.
The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be created as a
result of the proposed project.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
III.AIR QUALIlY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
o
o
.
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 . 0
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 0 0 0 .
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing eIDlSSlons, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 . 0 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitieation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
project:
Would the
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
o
o
o
.
Issues:
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified In local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially 'J.1ith the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or 'J.1ith established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict 'J.1ith any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project site is located within a designated development area pursuant to the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan and is fully developed. There are no candidate, sensitive or special status
species, sensitive natural communities or wetlands present within or immediately adjacent to the
project site.
d) No native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or
immediately adjacent to the project site.
e) No biological resources are present on the project site and no impacts or conflicts with local
policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would result.
f) No impacts or conflicts with local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans would result from
the project since the project site is located in a designated development area pursuant to the
adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and no biological resources area present.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change ill the 0 . 0 0
significance of a historical resource as defined in ~
lS064.S?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change ill the 0 0 . 0
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to ~ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unlque 0 0 0 .
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Issues:
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of fonnal cemeteries?
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 0 .
Mithzation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potenrial
substanrial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
11l.
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
including
ground
failure,
IV.
Landslides?
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 0 0 . 0
18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994),
crearing substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 0 0 .
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitil!ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Vll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
o
.
o
o
b)
Create a s1gnificant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
o
o
.
o
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
o
.
o
o
Issues:
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
a-c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Mitie:ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g" the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which
pennits have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a lOa-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
.
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
.
.
.
No Impact
D
D
D
D
Issues:
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Comments:
a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 0 .
o
.
o
o
Miti2ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
D
.
D
D
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, D D D .
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation D D D .
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project site and the surrounding uses are fully developed. The proposed remodeling of the church
and school facilities would not disrupt or divide the established community therefore no impact would
occur as a result of the proposal.
b) The project site is located in the Rl (Single-Family Residential) Zone and RLM (Low-Medium Density) .
General Plan land use designation. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and
land use designations, therefore; no impacts are anticipated.
c) The project would have no impact or conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or
policies and would not conflict with the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, which designated the
proposed project site as a Developed Area.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
x. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-b) The proposed project has been previously disturbed and would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents of the state and has not been
designated for mineral resource protection by the State of California Department of Conservation.
Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 . 0 0
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 . 0
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 . 0 0
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0 . 0 0
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 .
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport,
nor is it located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Brown Field Airport is the nearest airstrip
located approximately 7 miles southeast. The proposed project would not result in exposure to
excessive noise levels therefore no impacts will result from the project.
Miti!!ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, D D D .
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, D D D .
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D .
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
ISsues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project involves remodeling and expansion of the church and school facilities and does not
propose new residential development that would induce population growth or divide the
established community. Furthermore, no displacement of housing or persons necessitating the
construction of replacement housing or adverse impacts to population or housing would occur as a
result of the proposal.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any public services:
a) Fire protection?
o
o
.
o
b) Police protection?
o
o
.
o
c) Schools?
o
o
o
.
d) Parks?
o
o
o
.
e) Other public facilities?
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to
the site. The applicant is required to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building
construction and fire prevention. The City's Fire performance objective and thresholds will
continue to be met.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided
upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon
or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance
objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant
adverse impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School
District letter dated August 18, 2005, any facility used exclusively for religious purposes is exempt
from school fees.
d) Because the proposed project will not induce a substantial population growth, it would not create a
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or
expanded governmental services and would be served by existing or planned public infrastructure.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and 0 0 0 .
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities 0 0 0 .
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
. Impact
a) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore an increase in the use of
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities would not occur or have an impact on existing
recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities and the
site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs that would have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
xv. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g" sharp cutVes or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
o
o
.
o
o
D
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
Issues:
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity?
fi) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supportmg alternative transportation (e.g" bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
a-g) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti2ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration Section F.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expanslOn of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stann
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
slgnificant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entidements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in. a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand ill addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
.
No Impact
o
.
.
.
.
o
.
o
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 . 0
Issues:
Comments:
a) The project is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service
systems and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
b) See XVLa. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities would be necessary to serve the project. Development of the project will not
impact existing water or wastewater treatment facilities.
c) No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be
necessary as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best
Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City's
Storm Water Management Requirements therefore environmental impacts would be less than
significant.
d) The project site is within the Sweetwater Water District service territory. There is an 8-inch water
main located along the north side of Naples Street, a 6-inch main along the east side of Cuyamaca
Avenue, a 6-inch main along the north side of Emerson Street, and six existing water services for
the property. According to the Sweetwater Authority, based upon the fire flow availability, the
capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to serve the project site. No new or expanded
entitlements are anticipated for the proposed project.
e) See XVLa. and b.
f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid
waste needs of the region in accordance with state law. The proposal is not anticipated to generate
a significant amount of solid waste which would exceed the capacity of theOtay Landfill therefore
impacts to the facility are less than significant
g) In accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the applicant will be required to implement a
Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan and will comply with all federal, state and local
regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A. Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)
of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000
GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population, Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority
One" emergency calls within seven (!) minutes and
maintain an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less,
b) Respond to 57 percent of ''Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (!) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all ''Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually),
D) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
.
.
.
No Impact
.
o
o
o
Issues:
intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-80S are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average
weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway
ramps are exempted from this Standard
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities /1,000 population east oEl-80S.
F) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards,
G) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set program the City of
Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
1ssuance,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Tban
Significant
Witb
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Tban
Significant
Impact
o
.
.
.
No Impact
.
o
o
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project is not a housing development and would not induce population growth; therefore, no
impacts to library facilities would result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold Standards.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided
upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed church expansion project would not have a
significant effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services, No
adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold Standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will
provide service to the project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand
throughout the City, This increased demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact.
No adverse impact to the City's Fire threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) The surrounding street segments and intersections will continue to operate in compliance with the City's
traffic threshold Standard LOS "C" or better with the projected project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's
traffic threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
e) This Threshold Standard is not applicable, as the church expansion project is located west of Interstate 805.
f) The proposed project includes drainage improvements designed in accordance with City standards. Based
upon the review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues
regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. In accordance with City standards, post-
developed flows shall not exceed pre-developed flows and a fmal drainage study will be required in
conjunction with the grading plans. No adverse impacts to the city's storm drainage system or City's drainage
threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist of an 8-inch sewer line running east-west along
Emerson Street to which a new 4-inch sewer lateral connection is proposed. The Engineering
Department has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No adverse
impacts to the City's sewer system or the Sewer Threshold Standards will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority Water District, there are water
mains located along the frontages of the project site that are currently serving and may continue to serve
the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's Water Threshold standards will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
xvm. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
a) The project site is currently developed and located in an established urbanized area within the designated
development area ofthe adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. However, as discussed in Section E of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a historic architectural resource could be impacted by the proposed
development. Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated
to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. When the proposed project is
considered in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects, no cumulative considerable impacts have been identified and none are contemplated.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential impacts to humans associated with the short-
term air quality impacts, hydrology/water quality, hazard/hazardous materials, and noise would be
mitigate to below a level of significance.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-028, Section F,
Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation
measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's
desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
w~ ~~ K.'f\g
D; Cli'~('. c:;; u.c~ 0("'\
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
Diocese of San Diego
Izj~}~C
Date
Signature of uthorized Representative
Diocese of S n Diego
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
D Land Use and Planning . Transportation/Traffic D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems
. Geophysical D Energy and Mineral D Aesthetics
Resources
D Agricultural Resources
. Hydrology/Water . Hazards and Hazardous . Cultural Resources
Materials
. Air Quality . Noise D Recreation
D Threshold Standards D Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the .
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or 0
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
~"'f}~.
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
/f3/lo/r
,
Date
J:\Planning\MaryV\St. Pius\IS-04-028 cklst St. Pius.doc
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Resolution PCC-04-053
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-04-053
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-04-028 AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-04-053 FOR THE
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH COMPLEX AND
PAROCHIAL SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1120 CUY AMACA
AVENUE IN THE R-l ZONE
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2004, The Catholic Diocese of San Diego
("Applicant"), filed a duly verified Conditional Use Permit application to allow the
expansion and renovation of the existing St. Pius X Church and parochial school
located at 1120 Cuyamaca Avenue ("Project Site") in the R-I (Single-Family
Residence) zone; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
has conducted an Initial Study, IS-04-028, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant effects on the environment. Howeve~, revisions to the project made by or
agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-028. The
Resource Conservation Commission recommended adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration on January 9, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a
hearing on said Conditional Use Permit application and notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to property owners and residents
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
February 8, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented
2t said public hearing with respect to the Conditional Use Permit application, the
Planning Commission voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve Resolution PCC-04-053, approving the Conditional Use Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the
determinations and mitigation measures contained therein; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in this
Resolution.
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The St. Pius X Church and associated facilities have been in operation at the same
location since 1955. The Applicant considers the existing parish facilities undersized for
the current activities and in need of upgrading. The master plan is designed to increase
efficiency of the buildings in order to reduce the number of services and times of use. All
proposed expanded and/or renovated facilities will continue to be utilized in the same
manner and serve the same functions as they do currently. The additional 67 on-site
parking spaces would meet the on-site parking ratio and no additional parking would be
necessary. Furthermore, the proposed six-foot high masonry wall along the western
property boundary would shield the surrounding neighborhood from noise associated
with the project proposal, to include short-term construction noise, student noise at
outdoor playground area, and noise from vehicles in the parking lot. Therefore, the
proposed project has been designed to reduce impacts and add a value to the
neighborhood.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The operation of the Church and associated facilities have been designed and conditioned
to avoid potential health and safety impacts to nearby residents. The architecture,
landscaping, and noise attenuation walles) reduce any potential negative aesthetic and
environmental impacts. Additionally, whereas the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires
parking at a ratio of 1.0 space for every 3.5 seats in the sanctuary, the project proposes
the addition of 67 parking spaces, increasing the total number of spaces from 176 to 243
spaces, thereby meeting the required parking ratio. The lot has sufficient size to
accommodate the proposed use, as well as outdoor activities for the schoolchildren,
which primarily consist of recess and physical education instruction. The granting of the
conditional use permit enables the City to protect the character and quality of life for the
area residents in the least restrictive manner.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The project is associated with the eXIstIng church uses and facilities, which is an
Unclassified Use in the R-l zone, and requires approval of a conditional use permit. The
proposed uses have been conditioned to comply and remain in compliance with all
applicable codes, conditions and regulations for Unclassified Uses in the R-l zone, prior
to the final issuance of any permit or for the uses as described.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The project will not adversely impact the General Plan or any other regulations because
the project will expand existing uses that have been operating for many years. The
General Plan land use designation for the project site is Residential Low-Medium, with
the project site located in the Southwest. Churches are considered a compatible land use
in residential neighborhoods. Consistent with the policies provided in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, the proposed project focuses on historic preservation, and
safety and security of the neighborhood. The proposed project has been conditioned to
mitigate all potential impacts, specifically those pertaining to historic resources
preservation and environmental effects. The project as conditioned, complies with the
applicable codes and regulations, and conforms to all elements of the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby approve PCC-
04-053, subject to the following conditions:
II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS:
A. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with final approved plans
for DRC permit number DRC-04-053, dated January 27, 2006, which includes a site
plan, architectural elevations, exterior materials and color board, and landscape plans
on file in the Planning Division of the Planning and Building Department.
B. The seating capacity for the Church sanctuary shall not exceed 852 seats.
C. The Applicant shall limit student enrollment to 350 students.
D. The Applicant shall be allowed to use the parking lot for one carnival event a year in
addition to parking usage and school play. The Applicant shall continue to obtain
approval of a conditional use permit for such events from the Zoning Administrator.
E. The parish hall shall be operated so as not to disturb the surrounding neighborhood.
During events utilizing the parish hall the doors shall be closed as necessary to
regulate noise in accordance with the standards ofCVMC Chapter 19.68.
F. The Applicant shall prepare and implement a program that will maintain the on-site
landscaping in a healthy manner, and keep the school premises and neighboring
properties free from trash and debris.
G. The parking area and landscape plans shall be maintained according to the approved
plans unless modifications are approved in with the CVMC, as may be amended from
time to time.
H. The Applicant shall use graffiti resistant treatment on the exterior surfaces of all
structures on site including walls and fences. Additionally, the project shall conform
to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding
graffiti control.
I. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of the permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right
to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a
substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the
use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
J. Any change to the operational profile of this Project, any request for an expansion of
the use as described herein, or any deviation from the above noted conditions of
approval shall require the approval of a modified conditional use permit.
K. Any violations of the terms and conditions of the permit shall be grounds for
revocation or modification of permit. Any deviation from the above noted conditions
of approval shall require the approval of a modified Conditional Use Permit approval
by the Planning Commission.
1. Applicant/operator shall agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the
City, its Planning Commission members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities")
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's adoption of the
mitigated negative declaration # IS-04-028, and approval and issuance of the
conditional use permit and design approval, (b) City's approval or issuance of any
other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
the use contemplated by the permit and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of
the facility permitted. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this
provision by executing a copy of the conditional use permit, upon approval by the
Planning Commission. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an
express condition of the conditional use permit and design approval, and this
provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and
assIgns.
M. The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be applied
to the subject property from the time the Conditional Use Permit is approved by the
Planning Commission until such time approval is modified or revoked, and the
existence of the approval with conditions shall be recorded with the title of the
-...
property. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed project, the
Applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy
of said document.
N. The Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall become
void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in
accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with
any conditions of approval shall cause the permit to be reviewed by the City for
additional conditions or revocation.
III. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of
all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. 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.
IV. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, 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 ab initio.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of February, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Attachment 3
St. Pius X - Project Plans
~]J
",m
()
-<
()
r
2
GJ
2
)>
:D
:D
)>
-<
<:
m
w
o
:: U'J
~~
"1J
r
)>
2
~VD
~\I7
~
I\)
~<
~()
"2
-<
-<
~en
~~
~rn
-<
2
<:>
~ ~~~~! ~~~~~~~~~ :~: ~~~: ~~~
IIli! llliillii II! iii! ili
~~~~~ ~~~~(I;~~!'J(I; ~gl ~~~~ ~~~
~!i!! iii II!! i!'
!!~!! 1'! ..Ii ~,
i'iii j ~ 1!i!
. ' 1"1
,ei~
~"^~.~ '
"1J
~
,
,P"
id"
. i ~ ~
; !W~ '.'i~1 0
, ;"~ !I~ ~
1 ~!!1~ ~;;.
' <:> .~ ~. r"1 -
, m ~ I!! 1 ~ :r 0
: z P!q~!i:S
~ ~ ~~ ~i ~
I.... ,~~
1.
-
.
~.
!
~
~
m
2
()
r
0-<
en:D
C)>
:Den
m~
~"1J
~:D
~e
m
()
-<
<:>
~
)>
..,.
~ HH ~
~,o .
rE' !
;
"
-,
!
~ ~ i i .. '"
,';'j! ii
!
~ ~
'!ql!
~ ~ i
;
" LI:::.
1!\I7
u
~ ~
~
~~ ~~ S~~~ ~
8~ 82 ~~~~
~~ 8~ ~~r-~
~ ZS! ~~
~ ~ ~~
p ~;
,
,
d
; ; ~
~ ~
~ ~
II
H
n::
o-N
" c
.n 0' n~
<"i
~~ ~ "t:I1€
~.", ~ ::r">-o
;4.:::r
nn Q " go s:: -,
,." ... s::
~~ f ~ g.'"
9-
:::~ ro ><
OQ
.~ 0
:: (f)
!!i ~
q m
C
--I
r
i;!
--I
o
Z
"
r
)>
Z
0>
i Ii"
,!,p
, i ~ ~
\'W~ !'h ~
i '''~ii!~~:d R
! ~ ., Ii' n -
i m ~ :,.'1 l~:fa
! Z ~'!!~~~~
~:-" !!~5i~ i
IN' ~~
D
m
<
in
6
~
8'
~
'0
~.g
~::T
Q 0
~
-~
a
o.
~
~
Q..
go
~
a
~.
o
n:::
,,-N
" 0
.n
<"
_.'<
~~
nO
>"
~~
--~
n?!!
::T'>-;:I
~ -,
... ~
9-'"
><
~5
, 0
:D
."
r
>
Z
:II
m
<:1
o
:II
<
~~EB
'"
'"
o
'"
en
~
'"
! ~ ~ ~
d ~ j ~~
'In!"'~LJR
> .1 ~. n
m ;i'!1~~"
Z d!~~~~
~ ~ ~jn g
g~
CO
"n
<~
~~
nO
>"
~~
~~
i;'
~
'0
.,,~
~."
~0
f
.~
o
~..
~ n?{!
Q.. ::r >-;:I
rn ~ -,
~ ri ~
~ ::r ><
""
c
~
<
in
6
t5
ODD
~!:J~!:J z
::~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~ g
GI OGl ::j
C <c 0
5?j5 z
z Oz
" z"
~5
'0
JJ
"U
);
Z
D
~
0
0 0 en
0
~ 0
~ ~
..
0 ~
0
0
rl-. ,
.'"
'"
o
en
:n
'"
i : ~ ~
;1 ~i~ 0
!S~ ~ ~
ii'~ >2..
.1 ~ "~
;i! 1i [9
'ina Q. ~
i:~~ g
1 ~!
n::: i;' 0 t
S"!:5 ~ ~.
on a n ~
<~ "'O~ ~
1;;":11 ::r
pr~ ~"" Q.. >-0
;4.::r '" ~ c. .;.~~
nO Q (;') ...
>" ~ ,.,
~~ " en I ..~
f 0 ::r ><
:::~ ~. , ." -.
"" ; . ,
" 0
; ~ ~ ~
m
z
!'>
N
~m
"':u
m
-
r.::Jj ,
-~~~-t ~
1T -~l F.~.~?~~-=-:-
: , r:=:--~-. - ---~
ff ~ r--- - --.
'I: - ~-- -: - - ,
l.. 0 . f..:-~-=-~-...:. : -.: .
[- r.. -=:IJ
-
il (
I [ !
.I~ \ /C)
/1 ~
3 I I. /r--:-'-'1I., .
. J~jULr. ~;-=:~~~1
I f::::::==:::::-==. - -. -=:.
il.~
!
DDD
~~;;~ ~
~~ ~~ >
~~ ~~ g
~ ~~ g
o -to Z
z Oz
'" z"
~o
,,"T1
-:' "'Tl
en
m
"T1
r
o
o
:IJ
-0
r
:>>
z
/
:I:
>
F
o
~
?
:::
'"
en ~~EB
",
"~
'"
ipn
!d' -~
~ e I ~ ~ II~~ 0
!' i ~ .
Hlil :>> 2.
i I:! . ri 2-
! m ~HI.~ [~
I Z '!!~a 11 ~
! ,,~ '"
. ~
i w 'ih ~
n::: ~
E~ ~
;-n c
<~ ..,,~
~.~ ;-g.
~Q Q 0
~~ -~.
::~ ;-:
o
o.
~ n~
'" g-:?
ir '"i ~
~ n [JJ
o ::;Ox
~.
c
t...!~.."..'..r"..
.';T~~
I, --~
.: ,
~
<
en
6
i];
ODD
~~ ~~ ~
~~;~ )>
~~ ~~ g
~ ~~ g
o:jo Z
Z: Oz:
(;) z(;)
,en
., m
. ()
'0
z
o
."
r
o
o
JJ
."
);
Z
...
Co
'"
'"
en
;"
~ ~ LI:::,.
~~w
(1)
i !!P~
1<0 ~ i~~
i :0 ~ i 'i 0 ~i ~:1: 0
; !Hil.!~L>2 R
> ~ ~~ ~ ..,!l.
i m ~ ;l1li 2: t:J
! z Pli ~ ~ a ~
! N@"'~ '"
i ..... , "j ~~ ~
, - ~
n::: 1;' 0 t
,,-N ~ g'
" 0 ~
6IQ '[ ~ n
<'< ." ~
~~ ~ g-
~ 'U Q.. >-0 ,;::.~ -.0
~ :r
nn Q (:) ~ ... j:'
>" ~ n cn
~~ ~ 0 ::r >< I, . .'---;
~~ ~.
~ (JQ
,~ 0
:u
m
<
in
6
~
DDD
~~ ~~ z
:E~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~ g
OJ DID =i
~;;~ <5
o:jo Z
z Oz
" z"
iii'T1
i5 -I
~o 0 -I
JJ > 0
Z >0 >
" ~ ~~ Z
); ~
z i" ::!en x
0 o;n i"
'" zO
0 0
s: s: '"
)>
Z
r
m
<
m
r
030m
*~~
;n;nZ
Eig'"
!CJs:
~~~
G}(I):::!
;n;nZ
Eig'"
!CJs:
>m
;nx
~~
mZ
'"
~~~
GHn:::!
;n;nZ
>0'"
00
!CJs:
..0
~~
"'en
;n;n
>0
00
!CJs:
>m
;nx
~~
mZ
'"
~o~
~~cn
G')en~
;n;nZ
Eig'"
!CJs:
'"
'"
'"
o
en
'n
zJ rD.
~~W
OJ
; I! ~ ~
I <0" J ~
: iluHHi ~ DJ
' ' ~mh:;>~
i 8' 1 i. n -
I m ~ Eo l~ ~ 0
! Z P;! ~~ ~ ~
; N ~ j! ~ ~ ~
i en 'U
L"m
~~~
o>:::!
;noZ
!!!'"
~~~
men:::!
;n;nZ
"'0'"
>0
~~
.;;
Nom
g~~
;n;nz
>0'"
00
!CJs:
>m
;nx
~~
mZ
'"
n:::
""~
" a
E;Q
<'<
~~
nO
>"
~~
~~
":::om
~~~
;n;nZ
Eig'"
!CJs:
!I:
II
i;'
~
~j
~'U
~0
~
,~
o
~..
~ (j i!?
~ g-:Y.
ir ~ ~
" n en
~ ::r ><
""
o
>m
;nx
~~
mZ
'"
<m
rn~
ffi~
CZ
:;;'"
Lm
~~
~~
t'~.".'.:'.
...;;-:;.. ->
i'-~
".. ,
~~
.5
o
r
)>
Z
Z
m
X
GJ
JJ
o
C
Z
o
"
r
o
o
JJ
"
r
)>
Z
'"
'"
'"
'"
.;,~UEB
01
~~
.5
o
r
)>
Z
Z
m
X
"
r
o
o
JJ
"
);
Z
s:
)>
z
r
m
<
m
r
~I
rm
<ox
~~
~z
'"
I
m
~i
II
"
I
-----l
I
>m
;nx
~~
mZ
'"
~~EB l
,
;n
m
<
in
is
Iii
enm
ox
5~
~~
~
"
ODD
~~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~ >
~~ ~~ g
CD OCD =i
C <c 5
5 ~5 z
z Oz
'" z'"
o ~
c
~
~
g
..
.
z
o
;;;
o
c
"'D
;c
fT1
r
~
-
z
~
;c
UJ -<
:i
11 r
E
II ~
)(
n Z
:I
r: 0
:II
n
:r UJ
[J
~
1]
fT1
"'D
r
~
Z
o
<
1'1
_[~I:>> ;0
~f ~ ~
![ - g F
:r L ...
:~r ~
W5'
.. r !'
iH
7
,
~ T
;;I
~
i~~ ~~~ x ~f ~ '"
, x
,,3:: ~:....
~>~ ~ ,,-
:H
~ " !.Ii
~;; ~;: ~~ ~;;
!-::o
~!ii U ;.;;! ~;:
~~ .;.::.:.;
~: -~
:;:::z ;::~
Z-4 i~
i!j- t;
~~ ~. ~;
;c
-~ .~
;
" ~
"
H i i , !! III! . ~ ;> S
! ~ >-
z
!! " , ..;
" ~ ~
U ~i !r ..
,> >-
r
'"
=1
'"
is~
~!~
~;(::;
-<:
~~e
~~
!;~
~g
::z; i~i ~~zt;:~~~~ 11 ~ii~~ji
=.:;
~~ ! ,- :!;~g:
~i~5;:=~i: ~~
Hi . ~g!~;~ ~, ~P~'!f
II -:
~~~ ;::":':1 ... ",... ..~-....-..- H ~I:.:
;~; ~gg~HE~~E .'.;:
':)1 ~
1]
r,
~ ~O)
1J
;c
fTI
r
~
-
z
)>
;c
UJ -<
:'
1] r
c
(I )>
x
[j Z
:I
C 0
"
0
:I U1
[1
)>
1]
fTI
1J
r
)>
Z
z
0
;0
-i
J:
111
~~
~ <
" )>
-" ::!
"0
r'1 c" Z
r
t> 1'1
<
[ g; )>
! ~ -i
[ ;;" 0
i 17:
<< ' z
f~ In
i' .
.
~111
~ )>
~ In
-, -i
_111
Dr
1'1
<
)>
::!
o
z
Attachment 4
Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Finding of Effect
Report (FOE)
Final Historic Architectural Survey Report and
Finding of Effect Report for the Proposed Remodel
of the St. Pius X Catholic Church Complex in the
City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Including Mitigation Measures for Impacts
Prepared For: St. Pius X Catholic Church
1120 Cuyamaca Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Prepared by:
~ALVIN & ASSOCIATES
Historic Preservation Planning Company
3819 Via La Selva, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
August, 2005
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time",
Summary of Determinations and Findings
Galvin & Associates Historic Preservation Planning Company (G&A) prepared this Historic
Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and Finding of Effect Report (FOE) to discuss all aspects
of historic resource compliance under California state law for the proposed project: resource
identification, evaluation for significance, and determination of effects in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines at Title 14 California Code of
Regulations (CCR) 915064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024.
The proposed project is located in the City of Chula Vista in San Diego County.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church proposes to make changes to or demolish four buildings on the
property that date from 1955 to the early 1960s. The purpose is to serve the needs of a growing
congregation. The main church, former convent (current parish offices) and school will be
remodeled or added on to. For example, the primary entrance of the main church will be moved
to the rear elevation, and an addition will be made to the fayade. Also, its interior will be
modified to have new monastery style seating (currently it is basilica style), and a second floor
addition is proposed for the former convent. The parish hall shall be demolished altogether, and a
new hall building constructed at another location on the church property.
The project's area of potential impacts was defined as the entire church parcel, which includes a
total of six (6) buildings. They are the main church, rectory, school, former convent (current
parish offices) parish hall, and a "scout hut"/pastor's garage (current storage). The proposed
changes to the church complex will only include alterations or demolition to the main church
building, the parish hall, the former convent (current parish offices) and the school. The main
church and the rectory are the two original buildings on the property, constructed in 1955 in a
Modem interpretation of the Mission Revival style. The other buildings on the property were
built in a modest Modem style. Except for the "scout hut"/pastor's garage, these buildings are
all more than 45 years old and require evaluation due to their age. They have not been previously
identified or evaluated.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church complex was evaluated for historical significance as defined by
the CEQA Guidelines. The criteria used for evaluation in these areas include those criteria
outlined in Pub. Res. Code 95024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). It was determined that the main church and the
adjacent rectory meet Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and
period of construction. These buildings are representative example of a Modem interpretation of
the Mission style. They incorporate the character defining features of the Mission and Mission
Revival style through such features as shaped parapets with coping in the Mission Revival style,
a bell tower, cross at the tops of the parapets and tower, and the frequent use of arched openings.
The dome at the top of the main church bell tower is also representative of these styles. Arches
are found near the top of the bell tower, at the side elevations, and at the breezeway between the
main church and the rectory. This breezeway is a Modem interpretation of the traditional
arcades of the Mission quadrangles with its regularly spaced arches. The smooth stucco walls on
a wood framing system are also a feature. The buildings make use of these Mission features, but
there is a Modem simplicity about it, primarily due to the use of composite roofing material
instead of the Spanish clay tiles common with the Mission and Mission Revival styles.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page lof21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time.,.
In addition to the evaluation of historical resources located within the project area, G&A has
evaluated the potential for the proposed project to have a significant effect on the environment.
The purpose of this assessment of impacts is to determine whether or not the proposed project
will cause a substantial adverse change on any identified historical resources within the proposed
project area.
The four church buildings that are part of the proposed work are the: main church, former
convent (current parish offices), school and parish hall. The proposed project includes material
alterations to the main church exterior and interior. The former convent (current parish offices)
and the school building will have additions including a new second floor for the convent. The
current parish hall is proposed to be demolished in favor of parking. A new parish hall shall be
constructed at another location on the church property. No work is being proposed for the
rectory or "scout hut"/pastor's garage (current storage). Therefore, of these six buildings, the
main church building is the only one that has both been identified as a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA and will be impacted by the proposed project.
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as
mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. (CCR Title 14,
Chapter 3 915064.5 (b)(3)).
The proposed project includes maintenance, repair, stabilization, and rehabilitation. However, as
currently proposed, the project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (The Standards). As proposed, the project could cause a
significant impact on a historic architectural resource.
Therefore, G&A recommends mitigation measures that are roughly proportional to the impacts
of the project that will reduce adverse impacts on the St. Pius X Church in Chula Vista to a level
of less than significant. Recommended measures include photographically recording the
building before, during, and after alteration, creating an interpretation brochure, display, and
report documenting the history of the church, its architecture, and/or the changes made to the
building.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 20f21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time,..
Introduction
This HASR has been prepared by G & A, under contract by the St. Pius X Catholic Church. The
Church plans to alter or demolish four of their existing buildings as part of an upgrade of the
church facility to meet the needs of a growing congregation. The buildings to be altered or
added onto are the main church, former convent and school. The existing parish hall is proposed
to be demolished, with a new hall constructed at another location on the property. Since this
project is being overseen by a public agency, it is subject to the laws outlined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Public Resources Code g21000 et seq.]. This report has
been prepared as part of the CEQA process for taking into account the project's effects on
historic architectural resources within the project's vicinity.
Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA and must be given
consideration in the CEQA process [PRC g 21002(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1]. For the purposes
of CEQA, a "historical resource" includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure,
site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,
social, political, military, or cultural annals of California [PRC 5020.1(j)] or resources that are
listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
or included in a local register of historical resources. The criteria that are used for determining
historical significance for the purposes of CEQA are the California Register of Historical
Resources located at Pub. Res. Code g5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.
The purpose of this HASR is to determine whether the proposed project may cause a substantial
adverse change on historical resources within the project's area of potential impacts. The process
used for evaluating impacts to historical resources includes 1) identifying architectural resources
that are more than 45 years old that require evaluation, 2) evaluating those resources for
historical significance, and 3) determining the effects that the proposed project may have on
those resources if determined historically significant.
Project Description
The proposed project is located in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County (Refer to Project
Location Map A). The St. Pius X Catholic Church proposes to remodel, make additions to and
demolish buildings on the church property. The purpose of this project is to upgrade their
facilities to serve the needs of a growing congregation. The four church buildings that are part of
the proposed work are the: main church, former convent (current parish offices), school and
parish hall.
Specifically, the church proposes to demolish the existing parish hall on the northwest comer of
the property to make room for additional parking. The existing main church will be enlarged to
accommodate additional seating by changing the configuration from basilica style seating to
monastery style within the interior. In addition, a new entry addition is proposed on its south
(rear) elevation, with the modification of the original primary entrance at the fa9ade.
Additionally, the church proposes to construct a new parish hall to the south of the existing
rectory, create an addition to the former convent (current parish offices), and construct a small
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chu\a Vista, San Diego County
Page 3 of2\
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time..,
addition (proposed multi-purpose building) onto the existing school (Refer to following drawings
for illustrations of proposed changes).
I'
Figure 3: Plan drawing showing existing floor plan of
the main church
E9
""
Figure 2: Plan of proposed site showing proposed
relationship of new buildings on the property
Figure 4: Plan drawing showing proposed additions and
alterations to the main church
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 40f21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time.,.
Delineation of Project Study Area (Area of Potential Impacts)
G &A conducted a site visit on July 29, 2005. The purpose of the site visit was to define the
geographic area or areas that may be impacted by the proposed project and to identify any
resources that are more than 45 years old that are located within the project area that may require
further evaluation.
Ben Taniguchi, B.A., under the guidance of Christeen Taniguchi, M.S., who meets the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for architectural history, visited the project area and defined the area
of potential impacts for the St. Pius X Catholic Church. The area of potential impacts was
determined by defining those areas that could cause a substantial adverse change on the resource
such that its historical significance would be materially impaired. A substantial adverse change
includes demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner such that the physical
characteristics of a historical resource are no longer able to convey its historic significance.
The potential impact area was determined by walking the surface area around the project site.
Due to the nature of the proposed project, the Area of Potential Impacts was drawn to include the
entire church parcel (Refer to the Project Location Map and Area of Potential Impacts Map B).
Description of Buildings Over 45 Years of Age Within the Project Study Area
The St. Pius X Catholic Church property consists of six buildings, however its original
configuration consists primarily of a two-story Catholic church and its associated rectory located
directly to the southeast. They were constructed simultaneously in 1955 in the Modem Mission
Revival style. The two buildings are linked by an open breezeway with regularly spaced arches
reflective of the arcades of the Mission quadrangles. Both buildings have an irregular plan and a
northwest facing fa9ade that faces onto Naples Street. The foundations are concrete and the
wood framed exterior walls are clad with an original stucco cladding.
The main church fa9ade has a shaped parapet with coping reflective of the Mission and Mission
Revival styles. This parapet is in turn topped by a cross. The primary entrance is located below.
It has a full-height concrete door surround with a variation of classical details. The wood double
doors have an arch directly surrounding it; this leads into a vestibule with double wood doors
with a single light each. In addition, at the upper section of the door surround is a fixed arched
window with a stained glass panel. A set of concrete stairs with metal railing goes up to this
entrance, connecting it to the sidewalk below at Naples Street. This entry is flanked by two fixed
original stained glass windows. The building has a 75 foot tall bell tower at the north comer of
the building. There are four arched openings at the top of the tower, with original metal railings
at the bottom of the arches. The tower is topped by a metal dome and in turn a cross. Simple
rectangular window openings irregularly punctuate the tower in order to provide light for the
staircase located within it. The side elevations consist of regularly spaced arched window
openings with fixed original stained glass windows. These windows are in turn surrounded by
arched features that also extend across each of the elevations; there are pilasters located between
each arch. Historically, these pilasters were painted the same color as the copings and entrance
door surrounds to accentuate them (see Figure 26); this is no longer the case. The northeast
elevation has two concrete door surrounds. The one at the northwest section has original wood
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 50f21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time".
double doors, and is topped by a modest fan shaped parapet. The entrance at the southeast
section is more elaborate and extends out as a wing. It consists of three single original wood
doors that lead into two different rooms of the building. At the main northeast facing side is a
shaped parapet with coping and a cross on top, reflective of the Mission style. The concrete door
surround is segmental in shape. The side of the wing facing northwest has an original wood door
with a concrete door surrounding consisting of pilasters. This wing also has rectangular shaped
original fixed stained glass windows.
The southeast section of the church is slightly smaller in scale, and also has a shaped parapet at
the end, topped by a cross. This section has a pair of square fixed windows at the side
elevations, and no windows at the rear. The differentiation of this exterior reflects the interior,
since this is the location of the sanctuary and altar, the most important spaces within a Catholic
church. Located directly adjacent to this sanctuary space is an original one-story classroom wing
with a flat roof clad with composite sheets. The windows are metal slider types that may be
replacements. What appear to be wood doors are likely original and have no lights.
The rectory is more modest in its ornamentation. There is a coping at the roofline, and the most
significant architectural feature is the full-height concrete door surround at the entrance. It has
modified classical design elements that are reflective of the Mission style. It windows have been
replaced. Although its doors are original.
There is a concrete sign for the church mounted at grade in front of the main church that appears
to be original; it mimics features of the main church with a shaped parapet, coping and cross on
top. The landscaping directly on a slope in front of the main church and rectory consists of low
bushes of evergreens. There are also a few trees nearby, including what appears to be an original
palm tree. The buildings' shared landscaping may be original, although this could not be
confirmed at this time. There is a non-original chain linked fence bordering the rear of the main
church. Also on this 6.22 acre property are the parish hall, school, former convent (current
parish offices) and "scout hut"/pastor's garage (current storage). These buildings were
constructed in a modest Modem style. Except for some landscaping at the facades of the
convent and school, the rest of the complex is generally surfaced with asphalt for parking and as
a playground for the school.
Historic Context
The evaluated church complex is located in Chula Vista, San Diego County, about 12 miles
southeast from downtown San Diego. This was originally home to the migrant Kumeyaay tribe,
who also lived in what is today San Diego. European occupation began in 1542 when Juan
Rodriquez Cabrillo led a fleet of ships into the San Diego Harbor and claimed the San Diego
area. In 1795, Chula Vista became part of the Spanish land grant called Rancho del Rey (The
King's Ranch). The Rancho consisted of Chula Vista, National City, Sunnyside and Sweetwater
Valley. After California became part of the Mexican government in 1831, the Rancho was
renamed Rancho della Nation (National Ranch). The Rancho was then granted by the Mexican
governor Pio Pico to his son-in-law John Forster in 1845. Forster continued his Rancho
operations even after California became United States territory in 1847 following the Mexican-
American War. By the 1880s, several directors of the Santa Fe Railroad and Colonel W. G.
Dickinson, a town planner, formed the San Diego Land and Town Company. Chula Vista
HASR and FOE for St, Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 60f21
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time."
circa 1955 photograph looking east at the main church
in the background and the rectory in the foreground,
both recently constructed; the property has not yet been
landscaped (courtesy ofthe St. Pius X Catholic Church)
1955 photograph looking south at the main church under
construction (courtesy of the St. Pius X Catholic Church)
The two original buildings from 1955 were constructed as a Modem interpretation of the Mission
Revival style. The Mission Revival style was based on the architecture of the Spanish Catholic
missions from such areas as what later became California, Texas and Mexico during the
eighteenth and early part of the nineteenth centuries. The revival style was generally seen from
the 1890s until the early part of the next century; it was often used for residential architecture,
although it was also found with depot, institutional and other building types as well. It was no
longer used, however, after World War I. The style was replaced by the Spanish Colonial
Revival, significantly more popular and widely used in Southern California. By the time the
main church and rectory were constructed, the Mission Revival style had not been used for
decades. Its use in this instance for a Catholic church was appropriate because of the direct
association of the Mission style to the Spanish Catholic missions.
The two original buildings have the character defining features of a Modem interpretation of the
traditional Mission as well as Mission Revival styles. They are characterized by a shaped
parapet with coping in the Mission Revival style located at the facrade and the northeast
elevation, a bell tower facrade, cross at the tops of the parapets and tower, and the frequent use of
arched openings. The dome at the top of the bell tower is also a feature of these styles. Arches
are found near the top of the bell tower, at the side elevations, and at the breezeway between the
main church and the rectory. This breezeway with its regularly spaced arches is a Modem
interpretation of the traditional arcades of the Mission quadrangles. Visually, the smooth stucco
walls on a wood framing system are also a feature; although in contrast, the Mission style
building was typically made of adobe with a plaster coating. The main church and rectory have
shaped full-height primary entries with features characteristic of the Mission and Mission
Revival styles. The building makes use of these Mission features, but there is a Modem
simplicity about it, primarily due to the use of composite roofing material instead of the Spanish
clay tiles common with the Mission and Mission Revival styles.
HASR and FOE for St, Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 80f21
IA GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time.,.
became one of the tracts developed. Chula Vista was named by, James D. Schulyer, and roughly
translates to Spanish for "beautiful view." It began with five acre lots sold for $300 per acre in
1887. Citrus trees became a very successful commodity for Chula Vista, with water brought in
as a result of the Sweetwater Dam constructed in 1888. Chula Vista was incorporated on
October 17, 1911. By 1931, lemons followed by celery were the top agricultural products.
Unlike other Southern California communities, the change from agriculture to suburban housing
began early because of the relocation of the Rohr Aircraft Corporation to Chula Vista in 1941 in
response to World War II. 1
The shift away from agriculture and towards housing development accelerated after the end of
World War II in 1945, with an increased demand for housing for returning soldiers and their
families in the United States, including Southern California communities such as Chula Vista.
The community also grew, as the population increased from 5,000 in 1940 to 16,000 in 1950.
The main church was constructed in 1955 during this period of the city's growth. When the St.
Pius X Catholic Church main church and rectory were first constructed, they were the only
buildings standing in their immediate vicinity. Since then, other related buildings of the church
complex, the parish hall, convent, and school, along with their associated parking lots and
playground, were constructed during the subsequent years. Also at this time, the circa 1950s
Modem style single-family residences surrounding the church were built. Located southeast of
historic downtown Chula Vista, this church complex and its surrounding community are
reflective of the tremendous population growth that occurred in this and other cities in Southern
California. St. Pius X Catholic Church served the needs of this growing population.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church congregation had its beginnings in the spring of 1955 when
Bishop Charles Buddy of the Diocese of San Diego commissioned Father James McGinley to
create a new parish in the growing area of Chula Vista. St. Pius X had been made a saint the
year before the evaluated church was constructed. The first service was held on February 27,
1955, in the garage of a home at 42 Palomar Drive in Chula Vista? The main church and rectory
were constructed simultaneously in that year. The church's 75 foot tower was installed in July,
1955; a contemporary Chula Vista Star News article reports its installation in three sections by
workers on a 100-foot crane. The buildings were completed in the fall of that year. The first
mass was held on Thanksgiving Day, presided by Rev. McGinley. The additional buildings on
the property were constructed afterwards, during the 1950s and early 1960s. The Parish Hall
was constructed in 1958, and located at the west comer of the church property; it was later
renamed McGinley Hall after the church's first pastor. There is also the St Pius School, opened
in September, 1960. It was originally run by Sisters of St. Clare from Ireland. It is located at the
southeast end of the property. A convent was then constructed for the nuns; it is located
southeast from the church, across from a parking area. The school staff became secularized in
1983, and the remaining Sisters left by a few years later. The convent has since been used as the
school library, day care center, parish library, youth center and guest room for visiting priests.3
In 1987, the convent was converted into parish offices. A building permit was filed on March
27, 1987, for this work, stating "internal tenant improvement." The church was headed by Rev.
Donald R. Kulleck at that time. The third and current pastor is Rev. Joseph G. Masar. Currently
the congregation has more than 3,000 families registered. The 530 seat church sits on 6.22 acres.
I The infonnation from this paragraph were taken from www.wikipedia.com (history ofChula Vista).
2 St. Pius X Catholic Church, "History of St. Pius X Church," leaflet.
J St. Pius X Catholic Church, "The History ofSt. Pius X Parish," leaflet.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 70f21
Ii\. GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time."
Integrity Statement
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of
significance outlined in the California Code of Regulations and retain enough of their historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to covey the reasons for
their significance. There historic character is defined as integrity, which is the authenticity of an
historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed
during the resource's period of significance. The St. Piux X Catholic Church was evaluated for
integrity with regard to its retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association.
The building on the property retains its original location; it has not been moved.
When the church was originally constructed in 1955, the surroundings were still undeveloped.
This area was located outside of the downtown Chula Vista core, and was likely previously used
for agricultural pursuits. Citrus and celery production were popular during the early decades of
the area. Soon after the evaluated main church and rectory was constructed, additional buildings
on the property were constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s. These include the parish hall,
convent and parochial school. Surrounding the church complex are suburban housing
developments with Modern style residences constructed in the 1950s soon after the evaluated
church was constructed. This historic setting remains intact. The feel and association also
remain the same.
The design, material and workmanship of the two original buildings, the main church and
rectory, are highly intact. They were constructed in 1955 using a Modern and simplified
variation of the Mission Revival style. They have the character defining features of the
traditional Mission Revival style, which in turn was a twentieth century interpretation of the
Mission style originated by the Spanish missions in such places as California, Texas and Mexico.
The evaluated building is characterized by a shaped parapet in the Mission Revival style located
at the fa9ade and the northeast elevation, a bell tower fa9ade, cross at the tops of the parapets and
tower, and the use of arched openings. The dome at the top of the bell tower is also a feature.
These arches can be seen near the top of the bell tower, at the side elevations and at the
breezeway between the main church and the rectory. The design of the breezeway with regularly
spaced arches is reminiscent of the arcades of the Mission quadrangles. The smooth stucco walls
on a wood framing system are also a feature; in contrast, the Mission style building was typically
made of adobe with a plaster coating. The main church and rectory have shaped full-height
primary entry that has features characteristic of the Mission and Mission Revival styles. These
two buildings do not, however, have a Spanish clay tile clad roof typical of both the Mission and
Mission Revival styles. In addition to retaining these character defining features that have been
adapted with a Modern and more simplified variation, both buildings have retained their original
doors. The significant windows of the main church are intact, including the stained glass
windows, but those of the classroom wing at the rear appear to have been replaced. The
windows of the rectory have been replaced. The main church has retained its original interior
configuration and floor plan. The other buildings on the property are constructed in a simple
Modern style, and have also generally retained their architectural integrity.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 90f21
"'GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
....
Preserving architectural place in time."
The integrity of the property as a whole is good to excellent. The condition of the property as a
whole is good. The integrity of the two original 1955 buildings is good to excellent. The
condition of these two buildings is also good to excellent.
Evaluation of Potential Historical Resources
There are five buildings located within the project's area of potential impacts that are greater
than 45 years old. These buildings are part of the St. Pius X Catholic Church complex. There
are two original buildings constructed in 1955, the main church and the rectory. They are
designed in a Modem interpretation of the Mission Revival style. Within the next few years,
additional buildings such as the parish hall, convent (current parish offices), school and "scout
hut"/pastor's garage (current storage), were constructed. The "scout hut"/pastor's garage is less
than 45 years old. The additional buildings were built in a modest Modem style. Therefore,
except for the "scout hut" /pastor' s garage, which was constructed during the 1960s, this entire
complex is more than 45 years old and requires evaluation due to its age.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church complex was evaluated for historical significance as defined by
the CEQA Guidelines. A "historical resource," as defined by Pub. Res. Code 5020.1 G) is any
object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is determined to be
historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. The criteria used for
evaluation in these areas include those criteria outlined in Pub. Res. Code ~5024.1, Title 14
CCR, Section 4852 for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and
include any resource that fits the following:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The property was assessed under California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criterion 1
for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The 1955
evaluated church was constructed in Chula Vista at a time when its suburbs were growing, and
the formerly prosperous citrus industry was coming to an end. Circa 1950s Modem style single-
family residences surrounding the church were also constructed at this time. Located southeast
of historic downtown Chula Vista, this church and its surrounding community are reflective of
the tremendous population growth that occurred in this and other cities in Southern California.
St. Pius X Catholic Church served the needs of this growing population. However, research does
not support the argument that the evaluated building had a specific significant secular influence
or association to this historic trend. Therefore, it does not appear to qualify for the CRHR under
Criterion I.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 10 of21
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time.,.
The property was considered under Criterion 2 for its association with the lives of persons
important to local, California, or national history. The first pastor was Father James McGinley,
who served his congregation at least into the 1970s. The head of the Diocese of San Diego,
Bishop Charles Buddy was responsible for initiating the formation of this congregation.
However, research did not reveal that these individuals had a secular significance to our history.
Therefore, it does not appear to qualify for the CRHR under Criterion 2.
The property was evaluated under Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses
high artistic values. The main church and rectory were constructed in 1955 in a Modern
interpretation of the Mission Revival style. It has the character defining features of the traditional
Mission Revival style, which in turn was a twentieth century interpretation of the Mission style
originated by the Spanish missions in such areas as California, Texas and Mexico. The
evaluated building is characterized by a shaped parapet in the Mission Revival style located at
the fa9ade and the northeast elevation, a bell tower fa9ade, cross at the tops of the parapets and
tower, and the use of arched openings. The dome at the top of the bell tower is also a feature of
the style. Arches can be seen near the top of the bell tower, at the side elevations and at the
breezeway between the main church and the rectory. The design of the breezeway with regularly
spaced arches is reminiscent of the arcades of the Mission quadrangles. The smooth stucco walls
on a wood framing system are also a feature; in contrast, the Mission style building was typically
made of adobe with a plaster coating. The main church and rectory have shaped full-height
primary entry that has features characteristic of the Mission and Mission Revival styles. Likely
as a reflection of a Modern update, these two buildings do not, however, have a Spanish clay tile
clad roof typical of both the Mission and Mission Revival styles. In addition to retaining these
character defining features, both buildings have retained their original doors. The significant
windows of the main church are intact, including the stained glass windows, but those of the
classroom wing at the rear appear to have been replaced. The windows of the rectory have been
replaced. The main church has retained its original interior configuration and floor plan. The
main church and rectory do embodv the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of
construction. The other buildings on the property were constructed a few years after the main
church and rectory, and in a modest Modern style; they do not contribute to the architectural
significance of this church property. In addition, the former convent has been altered. The two
original buildings and their breezeway were likely designed by the contractor, Cecil R. Cotton
(Cotton Construction Company). No evidence was found that he produced the work of a master.
Although the property has enough distinctive characteristics of the Modern Mission Revival style
to be a true representative of a particular type, period or method of construction, it does not
possess high artistic values. This is because a property that is eligible for its high artistic values
must fully articulate a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. The main
church and the rectorv aooear to Qualifv for the CRHR under Criterion 3.
The property was considered for Criterion 4 for having yielded, or the potential to yield,
information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. In
order for buildings, structures, and objects to be eligible for this criterion, they would need to
"be, or must have been, the principal source of important information." This is not the case with
this property. Therefore, it does not appear to qualify for the CRHR under Criterion 4.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 11 of21
Ii\. GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time".
In summary, the two 1955 church buildings appear to qualify for the California Register under
Criterion 3 as for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction.
Therefore, they are historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The property was not assessed for National Register eligibility.
The City of Chula Vista criteria for designation are consistent with those outlined in the Public
Resource Code 5024.1, title 14, CCR, Section 4852 of the CEQA guidelines. Therefore, the
main church and rectory of St. Pius X Catholic Church also qualify for historic designation on
the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. Together, they are eligible under local criteria 4
(Distinguishing architectural characteristics that are identifiable) and 6 (Has integrity). Chula
Vista's Historic Preservation Program is managed through their Planning & Building
department.
Therefore, it appears that the two original buildings of St. Pius X Catholic Church are historical
resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code
921002(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1) because they meet Criterion 3 of the California Register of
Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 95024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). These buildings
meet Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of
construction. The buildings represent, at the level of the CRHR, a Modem interpretation of the
Mission Revival style. They have character defining features of the traditional Mission Revival
style, which in turn was a twentieth century interpretation of the Mission style originated by the
Spanish missions in such areas as California, Texas and Mexico. These include shaped parapets
in the Mission Revival style, a bell tower fa9ade, cross at the tops of the parapets and tower, and
the use of arched openings. In addition, the buildings retain a good to excellent level of integrity.
The period that the buildings gained significance is 1955, the year of construction. The other
buildings on the property do not contribute to this eligibility.
Of the two historical resources that have been identified within the project's area of potential
impacts, only one of the resources would be impacted by the proposed project. This is the main
church of St. Pius X Catholic Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. There are no
proposed alterations, modifications or demolition to the rectory as part of this project. There are
also five other building associated with this complex: parish hall, "scout hut"/pastor's garage
(current storage), convent (current parish offices) and school. These were identified as not being
historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Assessment of Impacts on Historical Resources
In compliance with CEQA, G&A Associates has evaluated the potential for the proposed project
to have a significant effect on the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment (PRC g21 084.1). The purpose of this assessment of impacts is to determine
whether or not the proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change on any identified
historical resources within the proposed project area.
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (PRC 9
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 12 of21
1ft GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time,.,
In summary, the two 1955 church buildings appear to qualify for the California Register under
Criterion 3 as for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of construction.
Therefore, they are historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The property was not assessed for National Register eligibility.
The City of Chula Vista criteria for designation are consistent with those outlined in the Public
Resource Code 5024.1, title 14, CCR, Section 4852 of the CEQA guidelines. Therefore, the
main church and rectory of St. Pius X Catholic Church also qualify for historic designation on
the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. Together, they are eligible under local criteria 4
(Distinguishing architectural characteristics that are identifiable) and 6 (Has integrity). Chula
Vista's Historic Preservation Program is managed through their Planning & Building
department.
Therefore, it appears that the two original buildings of St. Pius X Catholic Church are historical
resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code
92IO02(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1) because they meet Criterion 3 of the California Register of
Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 95024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). These buildings
meet Criterion 3 for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type and period of
construction. The buildings represent, at the level of the CRHR, a Modem interpretation of the
Mission Revival style. They have character defining features of the traditional Mission Revival
style, which in turn was a twentieth century interpretation of the Mission style originated by the
Spanish missions in such areas as California, Texas and Mexico. These include shaped parapets
in the Mission Revival style, a bell tower fa9ade, cross at the tops of the parapets and tower, and
the use of arched openings. In addition, the buildings retain a good to excellent level of integrity.
The period that the buildings gained significance is 1955, the year of construction. The other
buildings on the property do not contribute to this eligibility.
Of the two historical resources that have been identified within the project's area of potential
impacts, only one of the resources would be impacted by the proposed project. This is the main
church of St. Pius X Catholic Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. There are no
proposed alterations, modifications or demolition to the rectory as part of this project. There are
also five other building associated with this complex: parish hall, "scout hut"/pastor's garage
(current storage), convent (current parish offices) and school. These were identified as not being
historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Assessment of Impacts on Historical Resources
In compliance with CEQA, G&A Associates has evaluated the potential for the proposed project
to have a significant effect on the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment (PRC 921084.1). The purpose of this assessment of impacts is to determine
whether or not the proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change on any identified
historical resources within the proposed project area.
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (PRC 9
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chu1a Vista, San Diego County
Page 12 of21
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time.,.
5020.1(q) and 15064.5(b)(I)). The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or
alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical
significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the
resource's significance.
The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or
materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that
convey its historic significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources.
The current proposed project includes proposed alterations to one resource that has been
determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, the main St. Pius X
church building. Since this building is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, any
proposed physical alterations or changes to the character-defining features of this resource could
cause a substantial adverse change to that resource.
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as
mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource (CCR Title 14,
Chapter 3 ~15064.5 (b)(3)).
The proposed rehabilitation of the St. Pius X Catholic Church in Chula Vista, San Diego County
is not currently designed in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible
use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or
features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
Following is a discussion of how the proposed project meets/does not meet the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church was historically used as a Catholic Church and will
continue to be used as such after the proposed renovation.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
The St. Pius X Catholic Church project includes the addition and removal of buildings
that were not there historically. However, the project also proposes to substantially
increase the size of the main church, change the existing entrance to the church and create
a significant addition to the sides and rear of the church. Currently, the proposed project
does not conform to this standard.
HASR and FOE for St, Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 13 of21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time."
The most significant proposed changes to the site include addition and modification at the
far;ade, and the shift of the primary entrance to the rear elevation. Also, the building's
interior will be modified to have new monastery style seating (currently it is basilica
style). New features will be treated in accordance with Standards 9 and 10.
3, Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
There are no conjectural features that are proposed as part of the current project. All of
the proposed alterations are considered new additions and will be treated in accordance
with Standards 9 and 10.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
There are no features of the church that have acquired historic significance in their own
right.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The distinctive features such as the entryways will be covered by new additions. The
new finish of the addition will match the existing materials. The proposed design of the
new alterations will be similar in form as the existing. As proposed the project will cover
or remove some of the materials and features. Currently the project does not conform to
this standard.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Currently, there are no deteriorated features that will be replaced as part of this project.
Most of the proposed alteration to this church complex will be conducted on buildings
that are not historically significant.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
There are no chemical treatments proposed as part of this project. (Typically, chemical
and physical treatments include cleaning or chemical repair of deteriorated parts,
however, it may be possible that re-stuccoing of the building could cause a substantial
adverse change on the building if the new stucco does not match the old in color,
composition, and texture and if the application of the stucco is done so in a manner that is
not reversible and hence damaging the historic stucco.)
HASR and FOE for S1. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 14 of21
Ii\. GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time."
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place, If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
This study did not cover the identification of archeological resources. The Church may
consider testing for subsurface archaeological resources in areas where excavation will
take place as a precautionary measure, or be prepared (hire a qualified archaeologist
monitor) in the event of an unanticipated discovery during ground breaking.
9, New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new
work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.
The proposed project includes alterations to the building that do not appear to be
reversible in nature. The new work will be differentiated from the old and is compatible
with the historic materials and features; however the size, scale and proportion will be
changed. As currently proposed, the project does not conform to this standard.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The proposed project includes the addition of side aisles onto the church such that the
walls of the existing church will be pushed out to accommodate additional seating and
other uses. To do so, the existing walls of the church will need to be removed. It appears
that the proposed construction will not be done in a way that is easily reversible such that
the original form and integrity of the historic section of the building would be
unimpaired. As currently proposed, the project does not conform to this standard.
Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant
Effects
The proposed project includes proposed alterations to a historical resource. G&A has assessed
the proposed project and determined that as currently proposed, it does not meet the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Therefore the proposed project will
materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that
convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (PRC
15064.5(b )(2)(C)).
Therefore, G&A recommends that the following mitigation measures are roughly proportional to
the impacts of the project and will minimize impacts on the St. Pius X Church in Chula Vista to a
level of less than significant:
I. Photographic recordation of the church building and its relationship to the complex
before, during, and after construction. Appropriate photographic documentation would
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County Page 15 of21
~ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time,.,
include three (3) copies of each view at a minimum size 5" x 7" 35 mm film (in either
black and white print or color), mounted two photos per page onto archival sleeves or
cardstock. The three sets of photographs shall be bound and indexed with description of
photograph, date, accession number, and photographer's name. The Front of the
photographs shall have a Title Page and description of the proposed project and
description of reason for documentation. One bound copy of the photographs shall
remain in the possession of the church and made available to the public, one copy shall
be sent to the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, and one
copy shall be given to a local historical library or repository of choice (local library or
historical society) and to be made available to the public.
Documentation of the existing church complex would include A) one aerial photograph
(to be found by electronic media), showing the existing layout of buildings in relation to
each other, B) one each overall contextual view of the church building in relation to its
existing surroundings looking from each cardinal direction, C) one view of each elevation
of the church building documenting its existing configuration, D) one view of each entry,
E) representative views of windows, F) views of architectural details, including but not
limited to roofline, Mission Revival elements, lighting fixtures, finishes, hardware,
decorative motifs, etc., G) Interior views including overall interior, elevation views from
each direction, alter area, and all areas to be physically changed.
The same views shall be taken of the building from the same directions during
construction and after final completion of construction.
2. Creating an interpretation brochure, display, and report documenting the history of the
church, its architecture, and the changes made to the building. The St. Pius X Catholic
Church shall prepare, or have prepared, an interpretive brochure to be made available to
the parishioners and public describing the church's physical history, its architecture and
changes over time. The brochure should include sufficient text and photos to adequately
document and interpret these concepts. Additionally, the St. Pius X Catholic Church
shall create, or have created, a display within the public space of the church complex (not
necessarily limited to the church building itself) for the purpose of featuring the physical
changes of the church over time, its history, and its architectural significance. The
display could include historic and recent photographs of the church, written text on the
history of the church, a model of the old and new church, etc. The display should include
sufficient text, photos, and interpretive props to adequately document and interpret these
concepts. Finally, the St. Pius X Catholic Church shall provide and make available to the
public, this report and any subsequent reports documenting the history of the church,
including its architectural changes over time.
In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative,
photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource
will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, however this is not the case with this project. The proposed project does not
include demolition of the historical resource, but alteration to the resource and the proposed
recordation of those alterations would minimize the impacts to a level of less than significant as
many of the original features would remain and the new design is proposed in such a manner that
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 16 of21
Ii\ GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time" ,
it is compatible in design with the old. Full recordation of the changes would exist such that in
the future, the church could potentially be reconstructed to its original form, if desired.
The above mitigation measures will reduce impacts on the St. Pius X Catholic Church to a level
of less than significant and appear to be roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed
project. Because the above measures are not part of the project proponents to be included in the
project, G&A recommends that these mitigation measures be implemented as part of the
proposed project.
Conclusion
G&A has evaluated the St. Pius X Catholic Church in Chula Vista against the criteria for
inclusion in the California Register and determined that the main church and rectory buildings of
St. Pius X Catholic Church together meet criterion 3 for their architectural distinction. In
addition to the evaluation of potential historical resources located within the project area, G&A
has evaluated the potential for the proposed project to have a significant effect on the
environment. The purpose of this assessment of impacts is to determine whether or not the
proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change on any identified historical resources
within the proposed project area.
The proposed project includes material alterations to the main church exterior and interior. The
former convent and the school building will have additions including a new second floor for the
convent. The current parish hall is proposed to be demolished in favor of parking. A new parish
hall shall be constructed at another location on the church property. The main church was the
only building identified as a historical resource that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Secretary's Standards) for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer,
shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource. (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3 915064.5 (b)(3)).
The proposed project includes material alterations to the main church, which was identified as a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. G&A has determined that, as currently proposed,
the project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Thus, as proposed, the
project could cause a significant impact on a historic architectural resource.
Therefore, G&A recommends that St. Pius X Catholic Church mitigate impacts on the historical
resource to a level less than significant. Suggested mitigation measures include;
photographically recording the building prior to alteration, creating an interpretation brochure,
display, and report documenting the history of the church, its architecture, and/or the changes
made to the building;.
The above mitigation measures will reduce impacts on the St. Pius X Catholic Church to a level
of less than significant and appear to be roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed
project.
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 17 of 21
1ft GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
...
Preserving architectural place in time,..
Bibliography
Chula Vista Public Library, article from the Chula Vista Star News, July 21,1955.
City of Chula Vista Building Division, Building permits.
George, Mary, personal interview by Ben Taniguchi, August 19, 2005.
http://www.cLchula-vista.ca.us/AboutlHistory/asp (Chula Vista history).
Joe the caretaker of St. Pius X Catholic Church, personal interview by Ben Taniguchi, August
19,2005.
St. Pius X Catholic Church, church history scrapbook.
www.wikepedia.com (Chula Vista history).
HASR and FOE for St. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 18 of21
Ii\. GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
PreseNing architectural place in time",
5T. PIU5 X CHURCH PROJECT LOCATION MAP
GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
Historic Preservation Planning Company
3819 Via La Selva
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
(310) 375-6775
Project Location:
Chul a Vista
San Diego County
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP INFO:
National City Quad (WGSB4/NAD83)
PROJECT NAME:
IA
81 Pius X Church, Chula Vista
G&A PROJECT NO.
CRC-::1~~8;~:-:;:E a
HASR and FOE for S1. Pius X Church in the City ofChula Vista, San Diego County
Page 19 of21
IA GALVIN & ASSOCIATES
~
Preserving architectural place in time..,
PROJECT AREA MAP AND AREA OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
-Area of Potential Project Impacts
-Project Location
CD Previously Identified Historic Resources
GALVlN & ASSOCIATES
Hisloric Preseovalion Planning Company
3819 Via La Selva
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
(310) 375-6775
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP INFO:
National City Quad (WGS84/NAD83)
PROJECT NAME:
St, Pius X Church, Chula Vista
IA
G&A PROJECT NO.
CRC-050711-CDI01-SPC ~... ,;
MAP NOTTO SCAlE ~
HASR and FOE for 81. Pius X Church in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County
Page 20 of21
Attachment 5
Disclosure Statement
~~~
-.-
~--- ----
~~~.....;:
~- -
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CIlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1, List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplie .
~~fjJ~_~ ~~ J'
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
~
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~{~
4,
Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to repres nt you before the ~ in this matter.
~
Has any person* as CI ed with this contract had any financial dealings ~ an official** of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months, Yes_ No
5.
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract.
6,
Have you made a contributi~~of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? N~ Yes _If yes, which Council member?
2 7 6 F 0 u rt h A v e n u e
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-3101
~~~
~$~-;
CIlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
P I ann
ng & Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (~ months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No ,
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date: 01;-. 1.0 .O~
~ D lJJJcdu
Signature of Contractor/Applicant
D~I~ D. Wrtrrf;
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Print or
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 02/08/2006
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V-06-05, a variance request to waive the one (1) off-street
parking space that is required for an accessory second dwelling unit;
Applicant: Carl and Leticia Zinn 97 "D" Street.
This application is for a variance to waive the provision ofCVMC 19.58.022, which requires that
accessory second dwelling units (ASDU's) be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space for
studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units. (Attachment 1)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(a) categorical
exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303(a), new construction of small
structures.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve ZA V -06-05 based on the findings
of fact of the attached Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The property is located on the north side of "D" Street between Corte Maria and future First
Avenue extension (Attachment 2). The property is an irregularly shaped lot, that drops in
elevation north to south. Though the front of the parcel, is at a significantly higher elevation than
the rear of the parcel, the rear of the parcel is relatively flat. (See photos, Attachment 3)
The primary residence observes a 10- foot setback from the easterly property line and 4 ft from
the westerly property line. An established hedge that enhances the character of the craftsman
home to the east, runs along the entire easterly portion of the lot. The hedge is about 3' wide,
which reduces the space on that side to approximately 7 ft. wide. The site also features a
planting area and a masonry wall on the east side of the driveway.
The subject property is bounded to the north, west and east by developed and well established
single family residential lots (See Photos, Attachment 4). "D" Street is primarily improved (curb
and sidewalks), except for the intersection of "D" Street and the existing/future First Avenue
alignment. An area approximately 21 lineal feet is available directly in front of the property to
accommodate the parking of one (1) vehicle.
The rear of the lot abuts the future extension of First Avenue from whioh the applicant could
have vehicular access to the rear ofthe lot ifthere was the necessary right of way. However,
neither the city nor the applicant has been able to acquire the necessary right-of-way to provide
Page 2, Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-08-2006
such vehicular access.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
The project is located in the R-l - Single-Family Residential Zone, and has a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per gross acre). According to Chula
Vista Municipal Code 19.58.022, accessory second dwelling units of 850 square feet or less are
allowed in the R-l Zone and shall not be considered in density calculation. Therefore this site is
consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot.
3. Proposal
The City's accessory dwelling unit ordinance requires ministerial review of accessory dwelling units
that are 850 square feet or less as long as they are in compliance with 19.58.022. On April 26, 2005 a
building permit was issued for an accessory dwelling unit at this site. The one (1) car parking space,
along the eastern portion ofthe lot, as shown on the approved building permit site plan, satisfied the
requirement for off-street parking. Therefore, after full review ofthe plans, planning staff found that
the proposed accessory dwelling unit met the provisions of CVMC 19.58.022 and approved the
building permit to allow for the construction of the accessory second dwelling unit.
In an effort to avoid the removal of an established landscaping hedge, a planting area and a
decorative masonry wall, which is needed to provide the off-street parking for their approved
accessory second dwelling unit, the property owner has requested a variance from the off-street
parking requirement of accessory second dwelling units (CVMC 19.58.022). CVMC 19.58.022,
requires that accessory second dwelling units be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space
for studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units.
According to CVMC 19.14.140 a deviation from the regulations of a particular zone require a
variance. Such actions require a public hearing when the deviation requested exceeds 20% of the
requirement imposed by ordinances. In this particular case the applicant has requested a 100%
deviation from the required parking requirement and therefore the matter was set for public hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Accessory dwelling units are permitted without a public hearing by state law and a building
permit to allow for the construction of the accessory second dwelling unit at this site was issued
as a ministerial action and is not subject to this application. The variance request is solely to
waive the parking requirement. If the applicants are not required to provide the off street parking
space, they will avoid the need to remove a well established landscaping hedge and removal of a
planting area and decorative masonry wall in the front of the subject parcel. Therefore, approval
of the variance will help to preserve and protect the character of this established residential
neighborhood. In such case that the variance is denied, the property owners will have to remove
the hedge and erect a five foot wood fence to screen the parking within the side yard to the east.
Page 3, Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-08-2006
One of the challenges of introducing an accessory second dwelling unit to an existing lot is the
preservation of the residential quality, as viewed from the street, and the retention of quality and
character of existing neighborhoods. The applicant's accessory second dwelling unit will not be
viewed from the street as it is proposed to be built behind the primary residence, approximately
34 feet below the primary residence and the adjacent property to the east. Granting of this
variance may also help to meet the challenge of adding an accessory second dwelling unit in an
established neighborhood by minimizing the visual impact that would occur if the hedge were to
be removed to provide parking within the side yard area. (Attachment 5)
In light of the particulars of the site, staff believes that the findings could be made for a variance
from the accessory second dwelling unit parking requirement. First, a hardship particular to the
property and not created by the owner does exist. The property is an irregularly shaped lot, that
drops in elevation north to south. The width of the parcel is less than the standard 60-foot wide
parcel typical in the R-l zone. The narrow width of the parcel and the difference in elevation
from the front of the parcel to the rear of the parcel makes vehicular access difficult. Therefore
the required parking is limited to the easterly side portion of the lot or directly in front of the
parcel.
Accessory second dwelling units are allowed on all single- family residential lots within the R-l zone.
The property owner would like the benefit of an accessory second dwelling unit, that others in the
same zone are allowed, without providing on-site parking that may impact single family
characteristics, such as an established hedge and a decorative masonry wall, that are significant to
both the subject property and the craftsman home located on the adjacent parcel to the east.
Therefore if granted, the variance would not constitute a special privilege ofthe recipient not enjoyed
by his neighbors.
The second dwelling unit is proposed to be located behind and at a lower elevation than the primary
residence. Because of this the single-family lot, as perceived from D Street, retains the residential
quality and character of the underlying zone. The applicant has not been able to secure a vehicular
access easement, which would allow a parking space in the rear portion of the lot, adjacent to the
second dwelling unit it is intended to serve. Therefore the only other options are to accommodate the
parking on the eastern side ofthe primary residence, to park within the front yard setback or to park
on the street directly in front of the parcel. As mentioned above, through the building permit,
planning staff found that the one car screened parking space accommodated within the easterly
interior side yard met the requirements of CVMC 19.58.022 (C.6.), though parking here would
require the removal ofthe large hedge that provides substantial privacy between the property and the
craftsman home to the east. In addition parking within both the front or side yard setback would
require additional paving within the front ofthe property. Therefore, in this instance, providing the
off street parking space may have more of a detrimental impact upon surrounding parcels than the
impact of parking on street in front of the parcel.
In addition, the granting ofthis variance would not adversely affect the General Plan ofthe City of
Chula Vista. Section 7.2 of the Land Use and Transportation Element, Preserving and Enhancing
Stable Residential Neighborhoods, Objective LUT -2.1 states that it is the policy to preserve and
reinforce the community character of existing older well-maintained neighborhoods. In this case,
Page 4, Item: _
Meeting Date: 02-08-2006
waiving the 1 car off street parking space would help to maintain the single-family character of this
older neighborhood by maintaining the appearance of a single family dwelling unit from the front
view of the parcel.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recognizes the importance of preservation of older neighborhoods. Addition of a parking space
for the approved accessory second dwelling unit would require the removal ofthe existing side yard
vegetation, which provides privacy and a sense of residential character both to the subject property
and the unique craftsman home to the east. It would also require additional paving in the front of the
parcel. In this instance, a variance from the parking requirement may minimize the neighborhood
impact of this accessory second dwelling unit. On this site, on-street parking will help retain the
single- family appearance as viewed from the front of the parcel. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission consider the constraints to accommodate on-site parking and the significant benefit to
the neighborhood character that will result through the preservation of established landscaping that
contributes to the residential character of both the property and the craftsman home to the east and
recommends that Planning Commission approve ZA V-06-05.
Attachments
I. Variance Application
2. Locator Map
3, Ph0tos of the Subject Parcel
4. Photos of the Surrounding Area
5. Planning Commission Resolution
6. Site Plan
J:\Planning-Case FileSl-06 (FY 05-06)\ZA V\Public HearingzA V-06-05\StaffReportSlZA V-06-05 Zinn Variance Staff Report finaL doc
n g
g u
A TTAc/(M t; nT .1
ng Department
Planning Division
~u~
-.-
~--- ----
~.....::-~
~- ~
P I ann
&
I d
CITY OF
CHUlA VISfA
APPLICATION · DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING · TYPE A
Part 1
T e of Review Re uested
A lication Information
Applicant Name CCH'LL All) ~ Le..k'l ~ Co- ""2- '\ t\) C\J
Applicant Address <:\"1- 'D..5l' cD..\. u!~ U,.::;rll-..
Contact Name Le..-t:~ ~ ~ 2.\ ~N Phone ~~ \ -( 0 ~(
D Conditional Use Permit
D Design Review
.[2rVariance
D Special Use Permit (redevelopment area only)
D Misc.
c.A- q\ ~ t '0
~\~) S~ \.{ - )('-( \) \ (l4))
Applicant's Interest in Property (If applicant is not the owner, the owner's authorization signature at the end of this form is required
to process this request.) &tOwn D Rent D Other: ~ \ q '" \
Architect/Agent: LC\ r:> ~N.:>\Cl.u...c...~ O'\) Address: ~l 03 SfIUNl;- G I LI- ~A- 0\
Contact Name: d-Ps~1\J ~~rJ Phone: \..)\~ - '-\ \.a?:' - tg?:'D t:)
Primary contact is: ~Applicant D Architect/Agent Email ofprimarycq!1tact:L2...ro.V e.. roA-~LO ...~"""'
J
General Project Description
Project Name: Ci-::r .D .:;i.
)1.ener I Descri ion of Proposed Project:~.s:
{ ofT~' . 4.5; u /\e1-'-' /,,~
Has this project received pre-application review comments? D Yes (Date:)
Subject Property Information (all types)
location/Street Address: q:r D .sl. ~~t..- ~ ~c."". CA- '1 \ <:; \ ()
Assessor's Parcel ~:~&tp ~ /3/ -/2 ...62)Total Acreage: , I, Redevelopment ~~a (if applicable): I\J 0
General Plan Designation: j( Lrf) Zone Designation: 1(. /
Planned Community (if applicable): N \ p.,. \
Current land Use: LSTR Within Montgomery Specific Plan? DYes ~NO
Proposed Project (all types)
Type of use proposed: ~ Residential
Landscape Coverage (% of lot):
D Commercial
D Industrial
D Other:
Building Coverage (% of lot):
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~\f~
:-.-
APPLICATION . DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING · TYPE A
Part 2
CIlY OF
CHULA VISfA
Residential Project Summary
Type of dwelling unit(s):
Dwelling units:
~
t.\ad-
Number of lots:
C>~ (:....
PROPOSED
EXISTING
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3+ Bedroom
,
TOTAL
~
"t
~
Density (DU/ acre):
Maximum building height:
Minimum lot size:
Average lot size:
Parking Spaces:
Required by code: OU<2-. Provided: J2r
Type of parking (i,e, size; whether covered, etc.):.s:JJ't::JJ q~~ ~~~ ~ "!-\ ~
Open space description (acres each of private, common, and landscaping): IV , &1
~QU;~~
Non-Residential Pro'ect Summar
Existing:
Gross floor area: Proposed:
Hours of operation (days & hours):
Anticipated number of employees:
Number and ages of students/children (if appl"
Parking Spaces: ,/'/
Required by code~/P~ovided:
'------------
Type of parking (i,e. size; whether covered, etc,):
Maximum numbe of employees at anyone time:
\ Seating capacity:
\ /
/rV\~ ^
//~ l~
"
''-----..-.-----. - - -
Authorization
Print applicant name: Le.4\ 2. c.- 7., (lJtV
Applicant Signature: 0lfAc....... 'l::. --
Date:
\~a~\o(
Print owner name': Le...-\-\ cc...- 6 Nt-.,)
--Owner Signature.: ~ 2--
Date:
\~~lo)
'Note: Proof of ownership may be required. Letter of consent may be provided in lieu of signature,
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
Form 320
Rev 5.03
Pg 2/2
~~f?-
-.-
r~= =__:
~- ~
P I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX A
Project Description & Justification
Project Name:
q"1- \) 51.
L e.. -\-~ ~ c.-. L. ~ N cJ
ls~ r-\c&-
~ "'2.-, (\}rV
.
.
Applicant Name:
Please fully describe the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of
this project, and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the neighborhood, and the City of Chula Vista. Include any
details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use
an addendum sheet if ~ecessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "findings" as listed in the Application Procedural
Guide,
#' k(j-U-i ~I P 041 'vU -f/w r-ep/rec/ YJqr/;/\/)7 ~ rCLl/..[f:1
~ pl/Y/cb ~ /e14//ud ~qr-"0~ AJ~~~~CV"~
/ f) C'hq //2' --/Iv C.Aq/7 c;0,.. LJY ~ J1L/~ft/) ~/C
in; relf)iW/J '1 Nc{y.1 s.. Cldd-. ~ a rc / /) /)j <J-::;t!//
- PqVI'h~ wi //) -/it ~ V9r?>/,~ t::J
, U . /
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
'11'110
(61'1) 6'11-5101
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND
LOC)CATOR ~~~I~'i1T: Carl & Leticia Zinn
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 970 St.
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale ZAV-06-05
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
VARIANCE
Project Summary: A variance to waive the 1 car parking requirement
of the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions.
Related cases: None
J:\planning\carlos\locators\zav0605.cdr 01,12.06
.
.
4
1l7T4C- fJNE,DT ~
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V -06-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE ZA V -06-05, A V ARIANCE REQUEST
REQUEST TO WAIVE THE ONE (1) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE
THAT IS REQUIRED FOR AN ACCESSORY SECOND DWELLING UNIT
AT 97 D STREET.
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.022 requires that all
accessory dwelling units shall be provided with one standard (9 x 19) parking space for
studio, one-bedroom or two bedroom units; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006 a duly verified application for a variance was filed
with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by the property owners; and
WHEREAS, the application filed requests that the accessory second dwelling
unit one parking space requirement be waived and that the second dwelling unit to be
served by an on-street parking space available directly in front of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class
3 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303, new
construction or conversion of small structures); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
request for a variance and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property
owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10
days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
February 8, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve ZA V -06-05 in accordance with the findings of this Resolution and
subject to the conditions contained herein:
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can
never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
A hardship particular to the property and not created by the owner does exist. The
property is an irregularly shaped lot that drops in elevation north to south. The rear of the
parcel is at a significantly lower elevation that the front of the parcel. The width of the
parcel is less than the standard 60- foot wide parcel typical in the R -1 zone. The narrow
width of the parcel and the fact that the elevation differs from the front of the parcel to
the rear of the parcel makes vehicular access from the front of the parcel difficult.
Therefore the required parking is limited to the easterly side portion of the lot or directly
in front of the parcel.
2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege
of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
Accessory second dwelling units are allowed on all single-family residential lots within
the R -1 zone. The property owner would like the benefit of an accessory second dwelling
unit that others in the same zone are allowed without providing on-site parking that may
impact single family characteristics. In this instance, retaining the existing privacy
screening and a decorative masonry wall, would significant to both the subject property
and the craftsman home located on the adjacent parcel to the east.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
public interest.
The variance would not have a detrimental impact upon surrounding parcels. In this case,
the required one (1) car off street parking space may have more of a detrimental impact to
the surrounding neighborhood as the provision of the parking space within the side yard
would require the removal of a large long established shrub that provides substantial
privacy between the property and the property to the east and would require additional
paving within the front of the property.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of
Chula Vista. Section 7.2 of the Land Use and Transportation Element, Preserving and
Enhancing Stable Residential Neighborhoods, Objective LUT -2.1 states that it is the
policy to preserve and reinforce the community character of existing older well-
maintained neighborhoods. In this case, waiving the one (1) car off street parking space
would help to maintain the single-family character of this older neighborhood by
maintaining the appearance of a single family dwelling unit from the front view of the
parcel.
I. Prior to Occupancy:
1. The existence of this variance with approved conditions shall be recorded with the County
Recorder of the County of San Diego and a copy of the recorded documented shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to be made a part of the file.
2. Submit revised construction plans that show a paved area next to the accessory second
dwelling unit that will be sufficient in size to accommodate a standard size parking space.
The parking area(s) shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building.
II. Ongoing Conditions:
1. If any access easement(s), that would provide access to the rear of the parcel, are acquired
within three (3) years from the approval of ZA V-06-05, the property owners shall be required
to provide parking next to the accessory second dwelling unit.
2. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until such
time that the variance is modified, revoked, or voided.
3. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
moditied variance. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically
recover.
3. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure
to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City
for additional conditions or revocation.
III. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The P;'operty Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing 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, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed and
stamp~d copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation 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
97 "D" Street
Date
Signature of Property Owner
97 "D" Street
Date
IV. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or
further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the
imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
V. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall
be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of February, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary