HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2006/07/26
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
City Hall Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Felber_ Bensoussan_ Nordstrom_ Tripp_ Clayton_
Vinson_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members ofthe 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. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Appointment of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for FY 06-07.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-24; Six-month review of Conditional Use Permit to
operate a nighttime trucking facility at 120 Press Lane. G.I.
Trucking. (Quasi-Judicial)
Staff recommends that public hearing be continued to the August 9, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-44; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the expansion of existing mini mart and addition of a carwash
to an existing service station located within the Terra Nova
shopping center at 350 East H Street. Lorna Ratone/Camelor
Inc. (Quasi-Judicial)
Staff recommends that public hearing be continued to the August 9, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-06-081 consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility at 900 Otay Lakes Road. The applicant is Cricket
Communications.
The applicant, Cricket Communications, submitted a conditional use permit application to construct
and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility within the Southwestern College
campus, (See Locator Map). The proposed facility is designed to improve wireless service for
customers in the vicinity and city emergency services. Wireless telecommunication facilities are
allowed in any zone with approval of a conditional use permit.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 3 (New construction or conversion of small structures) categorical exemption
pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is
necessary .
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution PCC-06-081, approving the proposed
wireless telecommunications facility, based on the findings and subject to conditions contained
therein.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Cricket Communications is expanding its existing wireless network throughout San Diego County.
The network consists of transmission and receiving stations, also known as wireless facilities or cell
sites, which provide wireless communication services to serve residences, businesses, and provide
wireless connections for emergency services as well. Currently, there are two existing wireless
telecommunication facilities with the community college campus site, T-Mobile and Cingular
Wireless (see attachment 2, Sheet A-I).
Existing Site Characteristics
The monopine and associated facilities are proposed to be installed on the south end of the
Southwestern Community College stadium, which is physically located at the west end of the college
campus, near the comer of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road. (see Locator). The project site
(college campus) is Rl, Single Family Residential, and has a General Plan land use designation of
Public Quasi-public. The nearest residential area is approximately 375 feet to the west from where
the proposed monopine antenna tree is to be located. East H Street is approximately 650 feet to the
north and Otay Lakes Road is 1000 feet to the east.
Page 2 ,Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/26
Project Description
Cricket Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting
of a 60-foot high faux tree (monopine), designed to resemble a pine tree. The monopine, which is
designed to support 3-panel antennas, will be located at the south end of the college stadium. The
facility also includes a 96 square-foot equipment shelter built as an expansion of the existing ticket
booth located also at the south end of the college stadium (see attachment sheets AI/A2). The
shelter is designed to match the architectural features of the existing building including color,
material and design.
Staff Analysis
In accordance with CVMC 19.89, wireless telecommunications facilities are allowed in any zone,
with the approval of an administrative Conditional Use Permit. Monopines that exceed the height
limit within the particular zone require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission. This proj ect site is zoned R I, which has a maximum height limit of 28 feet. The 60-
foot tall monopine exceeds the maximum height limit by 32 feet.
Staff and the applicant worked together in order to minimize the impact ofthe equipment enclosure
and monopine to the site and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed monopine and associated
equipment will be built to comply with the Wireless Ordinance's development criteria and all other
City zoning and building regulations. Access to the site shall be kept at a minimum and conducted in
a manner that does not negatively impact normal business operations.
Why is the proposed height the only technologically feasible option for providing service to the
area?
The proposed facility is designed to provide wireless telephone coverage for customers in the vicinity
of Otay Lakes Road and surrounding neighborhood. The goal of the facility is to provide a signal
that would reach signals generated by other existing Cricket wireless facilities in the area. Cricket
Wireless radio engineers have determined that in order to meet the goal, the proposed 60-foot tall
monopine and 3 antennas are necessary to ensure that the radio signals reach the other signals in the
area for an uninterrupted coverage. Also, this taller facility with multiple antennas means fewer
cellular facilities in the area.
Does the facility use the smallest practical devices and most efficient technology needed to achieve
the needs of the network?
The facility will use a total of 3-panel antennas mounted on a 60-foot high monopine that will
provide the necessary connections to operate the facility. This facility has been designed and located
to meet the current and anticipated needs of the Cricket Wireless network in the area. According to
Cricket Wireless engineers, the proposal is the best option since co-location with existing carriers
(Cingular and T-Mobile) were not feasible due to a lower antenna elevation or limited ground space
in the immediate facility. Additionally, a 96-square foot equipment building is proposed to house
equipment including radio cabinets, electrical connections, telephone connections and battery back
up. The size is typical and is average for projects of this magnitude.
2
Page 3 ,Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/26
Has the facility been designed utilizing stealth technology to be visually unobtrusive and to blend
with the surrounding environment?
The facility includes a monopine that resembles a pine tree to partially conceal the antennas. This
stealth design (monopine) will be located near existing pines and foliage. The equipment shelter is
designed to match the existing exterior materials and colors of the ticket booth. This stealth design
facility provides visual compatibility within the context of the existing pine trees and foliage;
therefore, the project design complies with the City's design standards for facility stealthing.
Was there a good faith effort to co-locate the facility? Why not to co-locate? Were additional co-
location sites considered?
T-Mobile has existing antennas and equipment shelter on a stadium light west of the Crickets
project area. Cingular has wall-mounted antennas with interior equipment cabinets on one of the
campus buildings. Cricket is proposing a new support structure disguise as a pine tree, which
will allow space for future antennas below Cricket's antenna array. Co-location with the existing
carriers on the college campus was not feasible due a lower antenna elevation or limited ground
space in the immediate facility. Another Nextel pine tree located on the shopping center directly
east of the college campus was also considered. The Nextel site had limited ground space in the
rear of the shopping center and the antenna elevations did not meet Cricket's requirement for the
coverage of the area.
Is there an opportunity for co-location at the proposedfacility?
Cricket Wireless has designed the monopine to accommodate co-location, which will allow space for
future antennas below Cricket's antenna array.
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission and has found no such
holdings within 500' of the property, which is the subject of this action.
CONCLUSION
The wireless facility at the proposed location will provide a necessary service by improving wireless
cell phone service to customers, which includes residents, businesses and emergency service
providers. Additionally, in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation whereby
traditional phone service may be interrupted, the proposed facility would allow wireless
telecommunications phones to continue operating. The wireless facility will help accommodate the
communication needs in the area. It is a passive use and a well design stealth solution. Therefore, it
will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution.
3
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Locator Map
3. Project Plans
4. Photo Simulations
5. Radio Signal Coverage
6. Chula Vista Municipal Code, 19.89, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
7. Disclosure Statement
J :\Planning.Larry1\CUP\PCC-06-081.doc
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/26
4
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION PCC-06-081
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06-081,
A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 900 OTAY
LAKES ROAD - CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, a verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-06-081) was filed
with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on April 28, 2006 by Cricket
Communications ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permIssIOn to construct and operate an unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) consisting of one monopine supporting 3 panel
antennas and an equipment enclosure in the Rl, Single Family Residential Zone ("Project Site");
and
WHEREAS, the area leased by Cricket Communications, is the subject matter of this
resolution, and for the purpose of general description is located at 900 Otay Lakes Road, Chula
Vista CA 91910 ("Project Site"); 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 and Building Department Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, and notice of the 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 Project Site at
least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised on July 26, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista to receive the recommendation of
city staff and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and the hearing was thereafter
closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves
Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-081 in accordance with the findings and subject to the
conditions contained in this Resolution.
FINDINGS:
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.
1
Cricket's proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the Project Site will provide expanded
wireless communication services to the local community along Otay Lakes Road and H Street;
including commercial, residential and public facilities. Two other existing wireless
telecommunication facilities are also located on the subject property. The proposed Project Site
is desirable because it will provide the extra coverage needed in the area.
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.
Cricket's proposed wireless telecommunication facility will provide and enhance reliable digital
wireless communication in the immediate area. The proposed facility is designed to blend-in
with the existing natural and built environment. The new faux tree is proposed amongst existing
pine trees. The new ticket booth expansion will match the construction materials and colors to
existing building. The proposed facility is a small addition to the college campus facility.
That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
Chula Vista Municipal Code for such use.
Granting of this Conditional Use Permit is conditioned to require the Applicant and Property
Owner to fulfill conditions specified in the Chula Vista Municipal Code and to comply with all
applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use, including the
City's Wireless Ordinance. The Wireless Ordinance generally allows wireless facilities in all
zoning districts with a conditional use permit. The proposed use will be built in such a way that
complies with the Wireless Ordinance's development criteria and all other City zoning and
building regulations.
That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The project is a passive use and, therefore will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the
General Plan. The project will be built in a location with minimal impact of the existing land
use, and relatively minimal visual impact to the area because the antennas are largely concealed
within a monopine. Monthly maintenance visits that the project site may generate will not result
in the intensification of the use of the site and is an insignificant increase in the traffic for the
neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-081 subject to the following conditions that shall
be satisfied by the Applicant and Property Owner:
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of
the subject property in reliance upon this approval, the Applicant shall satisfy the
following requirements:
A. The Applicant shall submit a plan for a building permit that comply with the following
codes:
a. 2001 California Building Code
b. 2004 California Electrical Code
c. Structural calculations required for the new faux pine tree with the antenna attached.
d. Soils report required.
e. Haz mat approval required prior to the issuance of the permit.
B. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall
pay all applicable fees, including permit processing, development impact fees and any
and all outstanding fees due to the City Of Chula Vista.
C. Applicant shall submit full landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of the City
Landscape Planner as part of the building permit.
II. Prior to Final Inspections:
A. A final inspection of the facility shall be conducted by the Department of Planning and
Building to ensure that all conditions of approval have been met and all necessary permits
have been obtained. Electrical power to the facility shall not be enabled prior to the
issuance of a final occupancy permit, unless such power is needed to test the facility's
operation during construction and installation. If enabled for testing purposes, electrical
power shall be disabled once testing is complete.
B. Applicant shall construct and maintain the Project as shown on the plans.
C. Applicant shall provide a 2AI0BC fire extinguisher.
D. At plan review submittal, Applicant shall provide specific information on battery system.
III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it
relies upon this approval:
A. Applicant shall maintain the Project Site in accordance with the approved plans dated
July 26, 2006, which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and
colors, on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained in this PCC-06-08l,
and Title 19.89 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
3
B. Applicant shall comply with all sections of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code,
and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
C. The Conditional Use Permit is for an unmanned telecommunications facility. Access to
the site shall be kept at a minimum and conducted in a manner that does not negatively
impact normal business operations.
D. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes only the use specified. Any new use or
modification/expansion of uses shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
E. Applicant shall cooperate with telecommunications companies in co-locating additional
antennas on the Project Site provided any co-locators have received a conditional use
permit for such use at the project site from the City. Applicant shall exercise good faith
in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the Project Site,
provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality-
of-service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or
financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether Applicant has exercised
good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical
study at the expense of the Applicant.
F. Applicant shall comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) month
of the Building Division final inspection of the Project, the Applicant shall submit a
project implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building, which provides
cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all
antennas installed at Project Site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and
compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. The report shall be subject
to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with
the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI standards. If on review the City in its
discretion finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or
modify this Conditional Use Permit.
G. Applicant shall ensure that the Project does not cause localized interference with
reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion,
finds that the project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify this
Conditional Use Permit.
H. Applicant shall comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three
(3) months of the Building Division's final inspection, the Applicant shall submit a
report to the Director of Planning and Building that provides cumulative field
measurements of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the
results with current standards specified in the Municipal Code for industrial uses. The
report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building
for consistency with the project proposal approved on July 26, 2006 and Municipal
Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the Project does not meet the
4
Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify this Conditional Use
Permit.
I. Applicant shall regularly maintain the project site and associated equipment and
remove all graffiti on a regular basis.
1. Applicant shall allow the City to inspect the project site six months after the issuance of
building permits to check conformance with project plans and conditions of approval.
K. This Applicant 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 Applicant and after the City has given to the Applicant 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 Applicant of a
substantial revenue source, which the Applicant cannot, in the normal operation of the
use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
L. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council
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) Planning Commission or city's approval and issuance of this
Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action,
whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein. Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated, below. Applicant's acceptance of
this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision
shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's successors and assigns.
M. This Permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval. After five (5) years,
the Applicant may request an extension of this Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review this Conditional Use Permit for
compliance with the conditions of approval and shall determine, in consultation with
the Applicant, whether the project needs to be modified from its original approval as
part of the extension approval.
N. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the date of its approval 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.
O. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this Permit may result in the imposition
of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this Permit.
5
P. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future
building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals granted in the resolution, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with the conditions or seek damages for their
violation. Applicant or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
Q. Upon cessation of the business operations and use of the antennas by the Applicant, the
Applicant has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building Department and/or remove the antennas and accessory
structure/equipment and return the Project Site back to its original condition.
IV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the
Project Site in reliance on this approval, the Applicant and Property Owner shall execute
this document in duplicate by signing this original and all duplicate originals on the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant and Property Owner have each
read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein, and will implement the
same. Upon execution, one original document shall be recorded with the County
Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Applicant, and an
original duplicate, signed by the Applicant and Property Owner and stamped by County
Recorder's Office, shall be retuned to the Project Planner in the Planning and Building
Department. Failure to return the signed and stamped duplicate original of this document
within thirty days of the date of its approval shall indicate the Applicant's or Property
Owner's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for a Conditional Use
Permit, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent
Date
V. 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
6
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.
VI. 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.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th Day of July, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Bryan Felber, Chair
J :\Planning\LarryT\CUP\PCC-06-081_Reso.doc
7
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 07/26/2006
~
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-06-081 consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility at 900 Otay Lakes Road. The applicant is Cricket
Communications.
The applicant, Cricket Communications, submitted a conditional use permit application to construct
and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility within the Southwestern College
campus, (See Locator Map). The proposed facility is designed to improve wireless service for
customers in the vicinity and city emergency services. Wireless telecommunication facilities are
allowed in any zone with approval of a conditional use permit.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 3 (New construction or conversion of small structures) categorical exemption
pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is
necessary .
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution PCC-06-081, approving the proposed
wireless telecommunications facility, based on the findings and subject to conditions contained
therein.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Cricket Communications is expanding its existing wireless network throughout San Diego County.
The network consists oftransmission and receiving stations, also known as wireless facilities or cell
sites, which provide wireless communication services to serve residences, businesses, and provide
wireless connections for emergency services as well. Currently, there are two existing wireless
telecommunication facilities with the community college campus site, T-Mobile and Cingular
Wireless (see attachment 2, Sheet A-I).
Existing Site Characteristics
The monopine and associated facilities are proposed to be installed on the south end of the
Southwestern Community College stadium, which is physically located at the west end of the college
campus, near the comer of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road. (see Locator). The project site
(college campus) is Rl, Single Family Residential, and has a General Plan land use designation of
Public Quasi-public. The nearest residential area is approximately 375 feet to the west from where
Page 2 , Item:
Meeting Date: 07/26/2006
the proposed monopine antenna tree is to be located. East H Street is approximately 650 feet to the
north and Otay Lakes Road is 1000 feet to the east.
Project Description
Cingular Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility
consisting of a 60- foot high faux tree (monopine), designed to resemble a pine tree. The monopine,
which is designed to support 3-panel antennas, will be located at the south end of the college
stadium. The facility also includes a 96 square-foot equipment shelter built as an expansion of the
existing ticket booth located also at the south end of the college stadium (see attachment sheets
AlIA2). The shelter is designed to match the architectural features of the existing building including
color, material and design.
Staff Analysis
In accordance with CVMC 19.89, wireless telecommunications facilities are allowed in any zone,
with the approval of an administrative Conditional Use Permit. Monopines that exceed the height
limit within the particular zone require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission. This project site is zoned Rl, which has a maximum height limit of28 feet. The 60-
foot tall monopine exceeds the maximum height limit by 32 feet.
Staff and the applicant worked together in order to minimize the impact of the equipment enclosure
and monopine to the site and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed monopine and associated
equipment will be built to comply with the Wireless Ordinance's development criteria and all other
City zoning and building regulations. Access to the site shall be kept at a minimum and conducted in
a manner that does not negatively impact normal business operations.
Why is the proposed height the only technologically feasible option for providing service to the
area?
The proposed facility is designed to provide wireless telephone coverage for customers in the vicinity
of Otay Lakes Road and surrounding neighborhood. The goal of the facility is to provide a signal
that would reach signals generated by other existing Cricket wireless facilities in the area. Cricket
Wireless radio engineers have determined that in order to meet the goal, the proposed 60-foot tall
monopine and 3 antennas are necessary to ensure that the radio signals reach the other signals in the
area for an uninterrupted coverage. Also, this taller facility with multiple antennas means fewer
cellular facilities in the area.
Does the facility use the smallest practical devices and most efficient technology needed to achieve
the needs of the network?
The facility will use a total of 3-panel antennas mounted on a 60-foot high monopine that will
provide the necessary connections to operate the facility. This facility has been designed and located
to meet the current and anticipated needs ofthe Cricket Wireless network in the area. According to
Cricket Wireless engineers, the proposal is the best option since co-location with existing carriers
(Cingular and T - Mobile) were not feasible due to a lower antenna elevation or limited ground space
2
Page 3 , Item:
Meeting Date: 07/26/2006
in the immediate facility. Additionally, a 96-square foot equipment building is proposed to house
equipment including radio cabinets, electrical connections, telephone connections and battery back
up. The size is typical and is average for projects of this magnitude.
Has the facility been designed utilizing stealth technology to be visually unobtrusive and to blend
with the surrounding environment?
The facility includes a monopine that resembles a pine tree to partially conceal the antennas. This
stealth design (monopine) will be located near existing pines and foliage. The equipment shelter is
designed to match the existing exterior materials and colors of the ticket booth. This stealth design
facility provides visual compatibility within the context of the existing pine trees and foliage;
therefore, the project design complies with the City's design standards for facility stealthing.
Was there a goodfaith effort to co-locate the facility? Why not to co-locate? Were additional co-
location sites considered?
T-Mobile has existing antennas and equipment shelter on a stadium light west of the Crickets
project area. Cingular has wall-mounted antennas with interior equipment cabinets on one of the
campus buildings. Cricket is proposing a new support structure disguise as a pine tree, which
will allow space for future antennas below Cricket's antenna array. Co-location with the existing
carriers on the college campus was not feasible due a lower antenna elevation or limited ground
space in the immediate facility. Another Nextel pine tree located on the shopping center directly
east of the college campus was also considered. The Nextel site had limited ground space in the
rear of the shopping center and the antenna elevations did not meet Cricket's requirement for the
coverage of the area.
Is there an opportunity for co-location at the proposed facility?
Cricket Wireless has designed the monopine to accommodate co-location, which will allow space for
future antennas below Cricket's antenna array.
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission and has found no such
holdings within 500' of the property, which is the subject of this action.
CONCLUSION
The wireless facility at the proposed location will provide a necessary service by improving wireless
cell phone service to customers, which includes residents, businesses and emergency service
providers. Additionally, in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation whereby
traditional phone service may be interrupted, the proposed facility would allow wireless
telecommunications phones to continue operating. The wireless facility will help accommodate the
communication needs in the area. It is a passive use and a well design stealth solution. Therefore, it
will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution.
3
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Locator Map
3. Project Plans
4. Photo Simulations
5. Radio Signal Coverage
6. Chula Vista Municipal Code, 19.89, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
7. Disclosure Statement
J :\Planning-Larry1\CUP\PCC-06-081.doc
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 07/26/2006
4
.47TACJ-lIv\EIJT 1.
RESOLUTION PCC-06-081
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06-
081, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 900 OT A Y
LAKES ROAD - CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, a verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-06-081)
was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on April 28,
2006 by Cricket Communications ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to install and operate an unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) consisting of one monopine supporting 3 panel
antennas and an equipment enclosure in the RI, Single Family Residential Zone
("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the area leased by Cricket Communications, is the subject matter
of this resolution, and for the purpose of general description is located at 900 Otay Lakes
Road, Chula Vista CA 91910 ("Project Site"); 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 and Building Department Director set the time and
place for a hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, and notice of the 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, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and
place as advertised on July 26, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276
Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista to receive the
recommendation of city staff and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves
Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-081 in accordance with the findings and subject to the
conditions contained in this Resolution.
FINDINGS:
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.
Cricket's proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the subject property will provide
expanded wireless communication services to the local community along Otay Lakes Road
and H Street; including commercial, residential and public facilities. Two other existing
wireless telecommunication facilities are located on the subject property. The subject site
desirable for the proposed WTF facility which provides adequate space for the subject,
existing trees compatible in height to the proposed faux tree and substantial space buffer
from other land uses in the immediate area.
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.
Cricket's proposed wireless telecommunication facility will provide and enhance reliable
digital wireless communication in the immediate area. The proposed Cricket facility will
not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of person residing or working in
the vicinity. The proposed facility is designed to blend-in with the existing natural and
built environment. The new faux tree is proposed amongst existing pine trees. The new
ticket booth expansion will match the construction materials and colors to existing
building. The proposed facility is a small addition to the college campus facility and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code
for such use.
Granting of this conditional use permit is conditioned to require the Permittee and Property
Owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards
specified in the Municipal Code for such use, including the City's Wireless Ordinance.
That the Wireless Ordinance generally allows wireless facilities in all zoning districts with
a conditional use permit. The proposed use will be built in such a way that complies with
the Wireless Ordinance's development criteria and all other City zoning and building
regulations. Furthermore, the conditions of this permit are approximately in proportion to
the nature and extent of the impact created by the project in that the conditions imposed are
directly related to, and of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project.
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 project is a passive use and, therefore will not adversely affect the policy and goals of
the General Plan. The proposed use will be built in a location with minimal impact of the
2
existing land use, and relatively minimal visual impact to the area because the antennas are
largely concealed within a monopine. Monthly maintenance visits that the project may
generate will not result in the intensification of the use of the site and is an insignificant
increase in the traffic for the neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-081 subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the
use of the subject property in reliance upon this approval, the applicant shall
satisfy the following requirements:
A. The applicant shall submit plan for a building permit that comply with the following
codes:
a. 2001 California Building Code
b. 2004 California Electrical Code
c. Structural calculations required for the new faux pme tree with the antenna
attached.
d. Soils report required.
e. Haz mat approval required prior to the issuance of the permit.
B. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall
pay all applicable fees, including permit processing, development impact fees and any
and all outstanding fees due to the City Of Chula Vista.
C. Submit full landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of the City Landscape
Planner as part of the building permit.
II. Prior to Final Inspections:
A. A final inspection of the facility shall be conducted by the Department of Planning and
Building to ensure that all conditions of approval have been met and all necessary
permits have been obtained. Electrical power to the facility shall not be enabled prior
to the issuance of a final occupancy permit, unless such power is needed to test the
facility's operation during construction and installation. If enabled for testing purposes,
electrical power shall be disabled once testing is complete.
B. Construct and maintain the project as shown on the plans.
C. Provide a 2AI0BC fire extinguisher.
D. At plan review submittal, provide specific information on battery system.
3
III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as
it relies upon this approval:
A. Permittee shall maintain the site in accordance with the approved plans dated July 26,
2006, which includes site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,
on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19.
B. Permittee shall comply with all sections of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code,
and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
Issuance.
C. The Conditional Use Permit is for an unmanned telecommunications facility. Access to
the site shall be kept at a minimum and conducted in a manner that does not negatively
impact normal business operations.
D. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes only the use specified. Any new use or
modification/expansion of uses shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
E. Permittee shall cooperate with telecommunications companies in co-locating additional
antennas on subject property provided any co-locators have received a conditional use
permit for such use at the site from the City. Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-
locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided
such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality-of-service
impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial
burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether Permittee has exercised good faith
in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at the
expense of either or both the Permittee and applicant.
F. Permittee shall comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) month
of the Building Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a
project implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building, which provides
cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all
antennas installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and
compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. The report shall be subject
to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with
the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI standards. If on review the City in its
discretion finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or
modify this Conditional Use Permit.
G. Permittee shall ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with
reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion,
finds that the project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the
Conditional Use Permit.
4
H. Permittee shall comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three
(3) months of the Building Division's final inspection, the permittee shall submit a
report to the Director of Planning and Building that provides cumulative field
measurements of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the
results with current standards specified in the Municipal Code for industrial uses. The
report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building
for consistency with the project proposal approved on July 26, 2006 and Municipal
Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the project does not meet the
Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify the Conditional Use
Permit.
I. Permittee shall regularly maintain the antenna site and associated equipment and
remove all graffiti on a regular basis.
1. Permittee shall allow the City to inspect the site six months after the issuance of
building permits to check conformance with project plans and conditions of approval.
K. 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.
L. Permittee/operator shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council
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 approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b)
City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. Permittee/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional
Use Permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all ofPermittee's/operator's successors and assigns.
M. This Permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval. After five (5) years,
the Permittee may request an extension of this Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review this Conditional Use Permit for
compliance with the conditions of approval and shall determine, in consultation with
the Permittee, whether the project needs to be modified from its original approval as
part of the extension approval.
5
N. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the date of its approval 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.
O. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this Permit may result in the imposition
of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this Permit.
P. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future
building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals granted in the resolution, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with the conditions or seek damages for their
violation. Permittee or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
Q. Upon cessation of the business operations and use of the antennas by the Permittee, the
Permittee has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building Department and/or remove the antennas and accessory
structure/equipment and return the site back to its original condition.
IV, EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the
subject property in reliance on this approval, the Applicant/Representative and Property
Owner shall execute this document in duplicate by signing this original and all original
duplicates on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the
Applicant/Representative and Property Owner have each read, understand and agree to the
conditions contained herein, and will implement the same. Upon execution, one original
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego,
at the sole expense of the Applicant/Representative, and an original duplicate, signed by
the Applicant/Representative and Property Owner and stamped by County Recorder's
Office, shall be retuned to the Project Planner in the Planning and Building Department.
Failure to return the signed and stamped duplicate original of this document within thirty
days of the date of its approval shall indicate the Applicant's/Representative's or Property
Owner's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for a business license, be
held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent
Date
6
V. 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.
VI. 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.
P ASSES AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th Day of July, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Bryan Felber, Chair
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: \Planning\LarryT\CUP\PCC-06-081_Reso.doc
7
.-" -,"(
",/'
Attachment '2.
v
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~~~I~ 900 Otay Lakes Rd
ff\ :g~~;1: Cricket Communications
"--J SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCC-06-081
NORTH
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MISCELLANEOUS
Proposing three panel antennas mounted on a new 60 foot high
faux pine tree located on the South comer of the stadium with
64sq foot expansion of ticket booth for equipment shelter..
Related cases: None
J:\planning\carlos\locators\pcc06081.cdr 05.05.06
8
~WI
.s
x
"-
\
'"
8
'" '{1,
~ %\9-
@ ~~
~
'?<
~
C
"
~ ~ ;0
~ ~~ ~
z g~ z
~ \g
~ )
U
~
~ ~'" ~$
:~\: N! x
~ ~
; ~ a ~
i i.
II 1'1' !~ :0 ~ I i I (> ~. ~ ;g
~ ~ 0
" '"
z 11 ~
z ~r ;1 i!! ~
(> z
~ '" 0 '" c:
;0 ~ z
~ ~ '"
'"
0 x
I ~ i1~~~ I I c:
(>~ ~
o . 8i~g
2 .-
" "
;0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ j, 9 n ~ ~
o "" I ~
~g1~<;J i~:
o~~Q v
8-g!:l
pg:~8
~ ~~
<0 OZ
~ ~~
8~
~~
..~
~~
V'jV)AJ'" i
~~~~ ;
~ -< -< ~
~~~~
1 I .. 9
8z
~~
~~
qq~tt
"'''' ,,(> 15 0 "
:1:" :1:0 ~ ;u
0'" 02 0 0
2;0 2" Gi "
f:1~ [!1~ i9 ,.,
z en ;u
Q :<
(>
0 z
~ ~ (><0 '"
0 :1:0 0 -"
:I: CO S 0
2 <;0 :I: ;u
'" s~ ~ ;;::
G )>
0 ':1_ ~ :::!
~ 2 ;>',. :1! 0
0 d z
:I: (>
Z <0:0 0
'" -0 i;;
G ~15
0 '" g
2
,.
'0
Z
'"
~
~
,
2
o
~
DO
(> :0 N '" ~
0 ." 0 ~
2 '" Z '"
~ z
1'i '" 1; ~
C ~ 0 0
C1 C
0 :0 ~
Z 0
IE 2
2
~
;0
'"
:0
'"
2
,.
~
'"
'"
~
C
Ai
~
o $!
0' 0
~ ~
~ ~
(> 0
~ ~
C
~ ~
'<
~ ~
~
" '"
r :0
" "
,;;
'"
o
z
'"
f:1
~
,
"
g
r
.'"
(>
z
'"
~
;0
~;;;
<00
~~
"'N
"''''
"'''
":I:
iO'"
db
~;;;
<00
~:"'"
l.I~
-",-"
i:~
iO'"
:0
~~
~E
.3
-I
......
."
:0
8
Iii
2
(>
~
"''''~
~~~
~~~
~8.~
~Vit'l
"Oil",
"'C~
~~:::!
~~~
00:1:
2:rn~
"'~~
Oat
~:tj5
~~~
~~~
~F~
~8S
~~:
OC:I:
z(>'"
"'=''''
0'"
o'Zo
'::1gg
,,(>C
,.c"
,<,,'"
",2
~~~
~?:;5
. "',.
",C
~~
",;0
~~
~~
0:1:
:0'"
~8
:;]'S
~~
~O
:1:;0
"'~
~O
o
~;g
g
8
~
o
o
o
)>
-I
)>
-I
=i
r
fTl
(J)
I
fTl
~
(') (J) CJ)
00 )>
F~z
fTl I I
C):E .......
fTl fTl .....
(f).......
M:i>
:::0
z
g:I:;g~~!;~~~~~~
~~~~~~,,~~~):!~
~:::ifA@@o:!i~z~o~
:~~tn3;~:!J~ ~ti
~"O:!JnoeJ"'~~~~c...
lS~~~g"~~~~~~
"0!iJOiI"ii!2:OC~(')0
~AJ~~aC)z8Qn~
~~BQ88~z~~~
oJ;;2::;Bi~:O::J~OiI"
Bi:O '1J;1:O~ -it" C
iI~~[!1cc 1""1 0
~ ~ ~ ~ g ",.. 5
=''''' 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ..
~ o_~ 'f 1fI
.....brZN
'2
:I: 0
i5 '"
:I: "
:0
'" Z
g '"
=0 ~
~ '"
~ z
'" '"
~ ~
;Q ~
..
'"
o
"
q
"
o
2
o
"
~
)>
"0
"0
:;;0
o
~
,
(J)
!I;II
;;;;;J' ~~
.~~~~~~
t.lc:CI;IC~
~z~~
~~~~
co2 :
(> III
o c::
"
'"
~~8"'1
" ~:!i~
'::Jr,1~~
(r) n_
..s-:::ifTI~
-..I~~~;;o
.:0........ Oz
I~~~
gg~a
855
g~~~
Clo'-t
~ge~
~~~~
~~~~
~~o;o
;..,~~~
g~o~
~ng!:(
~~o
~~:~
~~~~
o~o
~!"3~
~~~"
~~p~
~z~8
~~~~
~~:!1~
~g~~
~o9[ri
;>"'1 ::u
-< 0
Fi ~
()I Z Z <,., en (")
p~):- "I ~ m ~
; ~~ ~~
p 53 ~ g
~ ~ }g>
~ .:!;
Bj CJ ~
z
'"
C
;=
"
z
"
"(>~"'!
::z::o .....:;0
o"i "'-
~~~g'"
-.;"~:1!
t;:$!n~i;:;
~!;i>-':1
v. tOOZ
I'-) "'Of>.)Z-
"~-1'T1
~(;:~~
",0:
o III
C
"
'"
g
~8~~~
z"i 0
r,J~~~~
~"'8~~
io~~a
c.n~(O;o~
1:S$~pfTI
IZ~VlR-
0'" C
~~ ;.1~~
2~
'"
gcr~~
~~~(g
~~~~
8os~
~;~;g
,?JfTlO~
go~g
C:!JOVl
~~~~
~~~S
1,!)8~B
z~~tI
~!"~~
~~~o
~~~~
'-1%' ,..,
~~~~
;~~~
E~~!>
dtTI ^
:::Oozrn
~;9Q
~'" 6
o '
~
5FAi<:;i~~
~ 8bn~
ffl:;t~QjE"O
~~~~>o
'-<-0. <os;J
~~8o~~
~~~~~~
'-to ~~;g
..,J"'1~~o~
-'0'1/'''00
ITIz;:OC:c
~> ~~~
t:::!ttJoo,.....
~~~~~~
,.,p. "'2
zo "'Os;!
0~~J;;~~
~;Q~oo8
~fflo:zz?z
~o...,J:!~o
~~~,..,~~
~~~.88
~~~~~
~.....S;I"'1~
1'i@:i'~:<:
:1:'"
!rig ;:I
~c: a
~~ .
g;
8~ ('J "i~
~~~p~
~'d ~d
:r~ ~ [ri~
-N :t: N>
~~ ~ -fi>ro
~~ ~ R-~
~~ ~ ~~
~ (> N8
~ ~ ~~
"
~
?I !.II '!'"
(>ZC
~~~
g~~
~g;E
~~~
zOC)
~(>(>
a~g
()
o
z
(J)
c
,
:;!
Z
-I
(J)
,
m
G)
)>
,
o
m
(J)
o
:;;0
"0
-I
o
Z
~
'"
~
~~
;:J ,
:0 '
~ I
'"
W~x
~ x
o
Z
:0
'" ,
;:1 ,
~ I
,
,
b
N"
00
~~
CJ
:0
"I Q ,.
x
i2j i2j g
~ 1 z
" 0
~
;~ ~
i2j
'"
'i1
~ ~
~
0
Z
III
d~~ 0
~~~ 0
8d~ 0
3i:=~ m
~~o
tH3~ 0
~8M 0
~o~ s:
~f;1
~~VI "0
;,.~ ,
oo~ )>
:00",
"'~rTI
~o~ Z
-i~a 0
8~:o m
2:1:"
~"''''
o 0
"'~
~@~
-102:
00':1
0''''/'=
~~~
,,-
(> 2
~~~
Y'o8
;0:0
~~
Ylg
2'"
~~
~~
z(>
o':ii
",:0
",,,,
"'~
~8
~~
"''''
(J)
-<
s:
OJ
o
,
(J)
xrrx~90~~~2~~~ ~~~~~~~Z~~~L~~~~~~~~~~~~ooooooooooo~nnnononoooooommmmmro ~~~>~>~
~5~r~~~~rr~ -40 0 ~ p~pppo~~. z9~go~pp~r ~~~~z~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~S$$~~ bz~~50 -4~c~~2~
~~N' :XI ?J < :c !"~7'0 ;; ~ . -1V10m !=9 (') :u~ .. ciO ~ 3:
o
Bi
c
~
';;;
z
"
~
z
(')
'"
Fi
!:)
III
)>
OJ
OJ
:;;0
m
<
)>
-I
o
Z
(J)
~6~~6~~O~~S8a~~ffi~~~~~~d~~6~68a8~g88e~gog8g~~~gog~g8g8ggggo~~~o8~~m~~m~~~~~~>~
~5o~~VI~~~~~~~~~g~mMmm~~58~~~~~~~mMm~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~g~-4~~a~~gs~~~M~g~~~
~~~gm~~ N~M5 Vlo~M~~~~~~~~5 o~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~r~:~~~~~~~q ~MZ~~~~ ~~o~~~~!;~~
~~m~m m 8 ~ VI ~~~8 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ g z ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~z ~~ 3:m~M~
F:: ~ l;; ::0 €5@tnt5C'.1 Z o~ C"I -t ::O;E ~ G1~ ~ (") E ~g :r.......~:;
f: M ~ z:r.......!:( 00 ,.., 1""1 Z M~ "rJ
Tj ~ () V) Z C);Q=< 8
~ ~ ~ ~P~"rJ ~r'1
g [II ~ cr- ~ ~
1::1", 2:0
"c
8
o
:0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;0 . ;-I..... P >:e=,,~
~~~..~....M~~~~~~~V)V)V)V)V)~;o;o;o;o;o;o;o;o;o~~~~V~OOOOZZZZ~~~~~~~~~~c~rC~zZ~~I
99m~~r-~~~c~Po~~~~Q....pp~~~8~? ~....>r-~-~~pr~~~~?do~~~z~8~~~Zf ~~~....;o
f) "'t)~"U ;J 0 ....13;E r:;j !:!I - " VI f1 . n :r r-'> ~
g;
~~~~~~~~2~~~ddd~~ddgS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;08~"'o;O~~~~~~~~~~~~~666~~~~~~~~~~~~~2~Q~~~B6
ZII~M~~~r-o-M~"U"'t) ~"'t)"UO-M~V)r'1z-CE~_m~I~~ca S MOQr'1Z~~~O"'t)I""I~ ....~....~~C~cn;o-~on~~~~zMC-"C
~g ~~;orQ~~~Q;oooogOO~A6~~~r-~~~$~~~Oar'1 ~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~ago""~z ~~~~~~~~~~~~z~....~>~~;o
o~ of_ F ~"rJ"rJ;o"rJ"rJ z~o_z ;ornl""lm~ ZC 0 5zl""lzo C ;oO....V)~"M~ r- m~....> ~> ~~~O~ ;o~o
~ ~ Z5~ ~~"'t)~~o ~~~ffl~~ ~V)d ~ ~"rJ~ ~ Og~ ~ ;og~ OM~ 8 0 ~z ~ ~ ~a g~
~ ~a ~8~ ~F~~ ~ a$~ ,0 ~~ j ~~.... z ~ ~ ~;o~ ~ ~~g ~ l ~
~g 000 tJ ~ ~ :r:: ~ PJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (") ~ tn ~ ~ g
;gz ~ ~ fT1 ~ fj ~ ;%J -; C) ~
g:;j ;u ~ -t r ::0
~M ~ ~ ~ ~
:0
(>'"
"0 0'"
~~ "'''
:;;0 -;0
"'0
C !"..
" :3 :3 "'~ :3 ~:3 :3 "" 0 C
",,,, "';0 (>
q,:, '"
z z ~ oz Z ~z z :i'~ C- ..
~ ~ "'':1 ~ :0':1 ~ "'C1 m '"
" '"
:g~ .:5,. ." 0 ;0
~ ~ i; ~ ~~ ~ on
~o g
" ",=' ~2 -I
~ 0 0 ",0 0 z~ 0 ~!!!
2 2 (>2 2 2 ~~ j\:
0 'i1 'i1 ~ 'i1 ~o 0 0 '"
~ ~~ ~." ." 'i1 m "
-:0 C C ~:g ,. '!1-:o ,. C
10 10 :3 ,~ '! ~ (J) g
:I: '"
(') (> '" ~ ~g ,i, '" 0
" ..
'" ~ ~ z '" (>
'" ~ ~
~ (> ~ q EO" 0 :;;0
Oil , "',. z
s;! ~ 0, ~~ , ~ ,.
~ "'\ "0 r
z ~ " " C
Z ~
,. 2 0 ~ 8 (> -I
.. .~ 2 '" =' ::;
" ." 0 0 C 0
:0 ~ '0 2 ~
0 0 " 0
C '" ~ (> "
" ~ " 'i1
~ '" ~ g
'" " 0 Z '"
" :I: :I: C ~ 2
'" ~ :!i z !Q ..
6 i;j '" '" g '" c:: c::
0
:0 '" 0 '< z '"
~ ~ 0 ;0 '" ~ '"
~ 2 i9 ;0
0 (> ~ ~
'" ,. .8 ~ 6; fj
~ ~ z 0 '"
.~ ~ 2
'i1 2 " '"
~ '"
~ '" 1 (> ,.
:I: q 0 '"
'" , g, " ;0
0, " ~
:3 ~ C
" 2 >:
~ '"
'" 0 '" 2
0 2 ~ ::'
C 0 0
'0 '" ,. z ~
1'\ ~ 2 '" "
'" ~ z
:!i ~
'" ~ ~ ~
:I: III '"
'" ;!i ID X
~ :0 '" 6 g
'"
..
~
N 2
g ~ <
~ -<
i5 0 ()
>: '"
,. \;
'" ~ Z
to '"
:0 ~
0
~
'"
., s:
'"
~ )>
['1 "0
"
,.
'"
'"
!'
~
~
~
to
III
~
."
"00)>
,;0"0
"0
)>',Z
z~()O
ZO)>-I
ZCOJ
G) ,
(J)m
m
(J)
"0
m
()
)>
,
Z
(J)
"0
m
o
-I
o
Z
(J)
en
~ ~ g On
cO-l~
en I 0 I -.....I
)>)>-I~ ~ ~
< )> m;- I.
Z - -< en o-n
I en I --I
-....J -I )> m CD
}, )> ^ ;0 :?:
omZ ~'"
~)>C/)() CD~LI
)> ~ ~ ~ ~rt
W)>I
~om
m
Lv
1: /; ~?: ~ :: (J)
~~~PI'~~ 6 ~ I
~~;.,~~~ " m
g '"
6 o:r"U~ ~ '" m
::OP~g~ :I:
~~pMY> :I: S -I
15
~~~ 8 '" Z
C
tntn~ ~ :0 0
~ -~ ~ ~
0 ~ , m
C ~ a ><
.J;; ;0 :0
~ 0 ~
0 0
'" '"
'" " Ai
.. z <; z
'" in .z (>
:I: '"
'" ,.
':1 C
~ ~ '"
'" ~ '"
~ 2 0
0 ?i z
C '<
=' f1 "
0 <;
2 2
'" 0 .2
~ ~
..
>
.....
.....
=
r:I
=-
3
~
=
.....
~
~
e,
8
i .
, ~
j "
~ ~
cricket
Com for tab I e W ire I e s s@
0 ~ ;0 ,,0'0'
-.. '" ~ fT'IO::tlViI"'1
'::, g ~ ~ ~~56tnd
~ g g tl)5~~~
",!:) 0
(>;0 0;0 " ~b~~~~
~~ ~~ ;0 3!ofT1 nl5
'" ;u ~~o~~_
;Ctn ;CU'J ~
jT'Ir>1 ('11'" <' ~ ~~~z~a
'So 'SO j!: 0 u; ]~:;oJ~?5:N
V)"'t) (/}'"Q m
'" '" '\! '" 6 ~~~~g~
'" '" (>
(> N :0 Z
P 0 ~ U1 ~~ z~
c: ~ on
g ~ !3~~~gg
g;~f~
ti~~~g
~ ~ ~ <D in :0 Viz
'"
:I: :I: :I: '<
;P~afJ$>~
~1!J9.~~~
~ ~~ ~. ~ en
:.:: 51 De:" .........
"JO;jis~~'--
Qv,s
~ .g'
~~
~
~
~
6160 CORNERSTONE COURT, SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
~ ~~ OJ ~ OJ gO ~~ G)
~ ~ ro OJ i~
",," ::J ~ ~. ~~ ~~ C'D ~rn ~r ~)>
~ ~~ 9- ~ ro ~~ 0 ~OJ ~C'D ~~~ a -I
Si V> H~ ~ (J: "'" "<0 ')'''' C!
~~~ 3 ;!; 0 '" 0 ~C'D ;; pJ ~
,. ..." ,,"'" ~,,~ ro
~ ~~ OJ ~g ~(f) s;:s;: ~ 51 V> ~~ "V> ~pe ~
~o ., "'''' :r rn "'''' S '" ;x:J
....~~ ^ c Un' OJ ::J C'D 0 " 'I: ro
p~~ < V> ...,. '" .,
}~~ V> ",- ",'0
'" S' ro () C'D n ~ 0
<;..111 -< ~~ 3 :!. ;:+
",~51 "'<0 0 '0 -0
.!!.~ <! V> ~~ 0 C'D ...,. OJ
~ ., ::J o' .,
'" !C~ 9: -C!: n
'" ~ ::J ~
" t.~ ::J '"
~ OJ r ~
~ C'D Z
~~ ...,. OJ ?
~ C'D V>
! V> C'D ~
~ U OJ )> ~
V> .,
g OiCii (f) ro
~.Jis. :r OJ
~ 0 ~
~~ ::!: "
~~ ::J '"
~ ~
.. ~
~
Q
~
::;j
~
."
~
z
'-<
i"
\l"11"0f~..~J~~
; - f"!!.'J'!.. ~IO!,'.:!:
&/
I
-1--
I~
1m
Ie
Ii
I;
)> I~
:-" I" ~
~ ~ ~
'R 1 ~ ~
'I> 1 ",:::J
2 .... -
\J I ~
- - H-S CENTERiiNi OF SEe1lON ~ - - ~+ - - - -
C
II
[l
~e~~~~~~~;g~~
I1fo1h ~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~~i~Si~
'" ~~~~ ~R
~~~i1
"~
.ol~R.~f.l.
>!>!IoCl"I<~\'":~'''
i:1~~~1O;8"5!HE I'-<
~ ~~~~ ~"/! ""
I't'j ~!Q (')v\ ~~1:: ~
U~~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~~~
[;j
fGl[ ~5!ii>!~?
~~~U~~~~
~~~~H~"
~ Q~~~
~ ..~,,~
~~~
~
~
/+
/+
~ ~/+
l
~.
I
I
~!
~!
S!
I
I
I
"
<'>
;
~
~ 0
~2
c
(l
'<
~
'"
-<
:x:
I I I ~
Ii! i j~~
.: I \1
~ 1_ I 0" ,0 ~~ I
~ ~ <" -.1,,0 I
" ~ I' ,,~
lit /1S ,,\ if.'Q< I
I 1 ,,:f''' ;t)s"J
L' ~I .>~~,~~-.l0 :
/, 'fqi
_ .!. 17'50')5", _ _ --'l,048J' ,t' 1-" 1
EAS1ERtYLlNEOFSECl1rM71 - - - - - - - - - - - ~
" - ,:,":: is /
" ~ )J " 1./7 /
< ~ /
~ CD~ C")n t=1 t=1 1 / /
"'~ t::::! II" ^' f"T1 ~ :s
~ J> V? :s " I /
r- ~ q ..:: C1 -< CfJ ^' /
0'" -I~ f"T1 f"T1 0 f"T1 t::J II~ z
en :z cn~~:J> C '- PS~~~ 0
3 _. -< :z: -1 :z: f"T1
CfJ~;:j :J>c::c>g 3' J> n ~:::I:z-im '"
-< ::r: m;t>oO-
I ~n " z>o^' CfJ too ::'i: 3: -< IUI< ~~~~~ ~ ~
co-< )> r::'
---30. 8 ~ ~ ;:OG)M r::' g ;t;!~ Z f"T1 m :z: i ~h 5 ~~ :1J m ~
~ ~ m:5-<~ ~ ;;? CfJ ~ ? .;~i!::D
~ i~ ~~ .. G)CfJ> -1 ~:;!~~~
~ -< -u oJ;! -.. m 0 ~ nO ;;0
:r: 0- ^ > ~ ~ i<~i ~~;;;~~ f'l
~~ :J< ('5 oom (") <D i~! ~!~~8 0 " <
c)>CfJ rn ::<J
- 0 !:<~!iJ"5J m ~
Z<D;:O r si ~ CJ r- (/)
~~o r ~~~~~ Q! 3:
I ---30. " ~
~)> m - ~ oj Z D
... wD G) iOI'j2j 0 :>
I m (jj~g!:!lz z ::<J Z
~i8!5 ~~~~~ -< (/)
!!~B;
" 00; '"
.. -< 5<
-
~ h; ~~ ~
OJ u..:.."" Il'1
0.0 "tJ
~:-'~ ~
" ~ <3
~~~ ~
<DOlO 3:
~~8 g
i~~ ~
'%'zZ
".. m
o nI
~rn
\
i5~
b~
~
~
""
'<--...
"~~
"
"
""
"
"
""
/
/
/
I
I
~':'c~k't~,! ,:".
I
I
I
I
I
_______..J
to
~
111
>!
~
" ~
" '"
" ~
"
"
"
"
~~
~
~
c
~
~ ~
gj or:;
""! '"
~2
~
...
o
"
<'>
;
I
I
/
~
i>
~~~~~~~ r
N~N~--~~~~~~~~~ ~
N_O~~~~~;~~~C~~~~~~C~:~
'"
~~~~~~~VI VI 1/)...1 r-
N ~ ". "~~ ~ 01 ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ Z
ddui "':-.1' 'c'! .gtJI~lr\1pl~~ N Oj~ ~I'"r)m
o~ .. 0 d -.lui ~
~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. :to ..; ~:t' .~ ~ ~ 10. ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~
01 ~ ~ 't; ~ ~ r'i '"'I' rri ' .f rr:.~ U; : ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ i ~ ~
"
"
~~~~~~_~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~
. ~~~~~~. ,p~ ~- ~~~OI 0I1l'1
'~~~~~R~~~~~O:~ t gb ~~
-. .........~ ~
""
"
~(){)(){)~
""t.oN_~
"
"
""
,...
~ ~.,.. ~
'~ (;) ()
iIo."". .~ . ~ ~
~ VI ::0 ~
g 01 0 ....).. ~
gg&~ ~~
.. . .U)....
m
"
"
""
"
"
~ ~ }:..
~.. ~ '". ~
. .'"
e
~
"
~
~
~
#1
i:? I
"C'<%i%;
~
~
~
/ "
/
/ /
/ I
I /
/
I
/!
II
!I
fl
I
I
/
1
I'
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
(f)
=i
m
"'0
~
Z
N17'56'16"W 657.93'
;~
" .
~_........__._.--.
----
10'-0"
SETBACK
I~
I ~ ~3
/1.iI" 00
"i o2iZ
'" ,,"
c"
I Z':!
I '" ~;!j
!;1 ;813
~ Or'!
. ?<~
"'c
~C)
u
"
~
ff~ 0-
D ,.
~ '?
S17"50'3S-E- 12Q"['83'
~ ~ '" -f
0 <3 m I
~ ~ c r-
~ ~ m
"
" ~ (")
8 0 x
'" 0 I
" 19
~ 8 :1:
Z " :1:
~ .. '"
II (/) '" " c
0 '" :z: x
() Z ~ "
)> ~ if ('5 I
r
.'" " '" a )>
I " ~ "
" -f
I;J ~
2 0
0. ~ ~ :z: Q Q
'" '"
" "T1 in ~
~ if "
CD )> z Z
u: "" " (") " "
I -'" " ~
:::; " ~~ r- ~
g c
O. F <eE -f Z "
.'" i;; ~
" .3 m
z en " '"
~! " ;:1
u c Z
~ "
... '"
o.
->.
(/) n (/) en
=1 00 )>
fTI F~z
-0 fTI:r: I
)> ~ C):::E: .......
fTI fTI -L
Z (/).......
-1'
fTI)>
...L ;;0
z
~'I::'J
~~
<;;::1""'''''''''''''''~
u '?\?"'" f'l"-i
Ii: "!!1"''''o",S k l'
!" ~ ~~~~6," Kk
I'T1 ~ 1::;;0;:0 ~::I: L~:
:< 0 n~ I'\J
!~ "'~
o c
2 ~
z '"
'" "
"
o 0
." C
~ ~
115 ~
:I: =I
j;j
en
-f
m
-c
r-
)>
:z:
r-
m
G)
m
:z:
0
~ ~
"
'"
Z "
"" c
c ~
~
~
~
;::' ;J1 g-> a; ". J::::;:::oI
~~~i~~
~1i:Jo;'J 3 tm
~ 51 ~ e: '" .............
~Q;3~~",,""-
~~5
~.~.
!3/f
cricket
Com for tab I e Wi ref e s s@
~
~
~.
~ .
~ f
1 ~
~
9
.g
6160 CORNERSTONE COURT. SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
.....-.........-1
"''''
8~
i~
Ff;;
.,,'"
'"=I
~~...~u~uuuuuu~~~~~~-~ ~
~U~-D~~~.UN__ON-Oaoooo
OOOODON-OOO~OOOOO~.UNO
R-
:!
~~~~~~~~~~~
~(")~~~~~~~~Q
~" ""~ "'"
CU)::tI ~()C -<z
~~t;J ~U1J: ~
COD ~
~it:~ V)
'" g
'"
"
'"
~
~
~6~~~g~~~~ ;
Q~~~~Bii~~~~
"'U1~b1~b1~g~
~OYJO(;)V'JVlZ':::f
Fqja~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ V>
m
c
!::
o
:z:
G)
r-
m
G)
~oo~~m~~~mmm~~~~~~~~... ~ :z:rn
8~8g~8~a8~~o8~~~~to8~~~
o
~~~~~~~~~8~2~~R~~6 ~
o~~-- ^OOOQI ~ 0
~Q~nn 0 ~~~~Z ~ b
~~ ~ ~~~~~~8~ ~
o "i ~~~~~Q~~ ;
~ ~~~ ~.(
:j r:;:; r:;:; VI
o '" '"
z
R2~ i
~~~
~~~
~~g
VI~VI
g
'"
'"
a ';J
~ ~
~ ~
();;C ();;C
~~ ~s
3:V) 3:V)
i"'1rr1 ,.,,~
~o ~o
VI~ V)~
~ ~
"
"
o
;8
~
-<
"
~ ~
~ '"'
~
C ;U
" '<
~ ~ (Jj
.( (") <3
N 2? Z
2Pd_J:lU1
~ ~ VI ~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
o
"
"
o
~
~:2 ~
(')N h
~i~__\~~
1 ~~~
~~~
"'"
co
~~
>",
">
"ro
"r
OM
1<
)> U) )>
Z r'1
>> 0 :z:
-I 0 ro --< --i
0
m ;u m
z >> :z:
Z N :z:
)> '" a> a> ~ )>
'oJ q S
q q
(f) I :z:
(") >> "T1
I " " " Z 0
0 0 0 --<
m U) U) U) r'1 :c
x x x Z s:
0 0 0 0 Z
C a> a> a> )> ~
U) U) U)
r I I I s::
m '-" '-" 0 0
l.< 0
I I I r'1 :z:
0 0 0 r
N N '"
U) :;: U) 0>>
... -z
... s::--<
I' I' I' U)r'1
Z
Z
>>
m m m
m m. m
i ~ i
'-" '-" '-" ~:g
<.. <.. <.. ~~
0' 0' 0' "".,
"'z
-'-~
,,>> '"
r'1Z 13:
00
;0-< "0
r'1 P
U)Z
r'1Z
0>>
-<U)
0
;u
OS::
zU) q q q ~~
. 0 I
-< >>
0~ Iro
r'1>>
l.< l.< '-" Zro
CO CO CO. C'Jr
-<C'1
~ ff-' H- I
-J
m
0
c
""0 $
s:
m
z
-I
~
0
C
-I
...U)
II: S;
-r
. C'1
I "
0,
o.
~~~
"F",
~01."=U r2?
Z 1- 00
~i~ ~e
~R 8~
n~ ~~
;;! o!;j
:z~ (J)
cf;;
z",
"''''
"'.
J' ;),1
...."..
cl7"-
z~ ~
; ~ -----
.,6 r
M'; \
~ \
...,
~
CO_
--d~
Vi
CJ1
----
-2!
;;0
o
o
.,.,
""0
~
Z
d
...U)
II: ~
- r
I" !:1
0,
0.
"'-
...-
(I'J ~ '0'
ou/,ot>fC:lVt ...."..
SI'ff'(rf'f/
ROo;-
'"
~J
w
)>
I\)
O"'OfTI;:U
~):~8
)>z-.,
r=' "0
UI)>S:"O
"",zS2):
"'- ;:;:j -! z
UlZ.,YJ
OZr
:c)>o
fTI 0
O"O;:u
C):
f;=;z
~
~
o UI C/)
00 )>
F~z
fTl:c I
C) ~ ""-J
fTI fTl ::::J
UI'
;:;:j)>
:;0
Z
)>
Z
-I
m
z
z
)>
""0
r
)>
Z
'-
...U)
II: ~
- r
1- f"':1
c:;
en
~. ~
. + ........
R$.......
~ +.
ai
o.
"'.
....
CO.
~J
~~S'
-n-
1 z"
~.~~
'1;;:
~~
?<f;;
EJ
;;0
o
o
.,.,
o
m
s:
o
r
::J
o
Z
""0
~
Z
'-
...u)
II' ~
-r
J- :':1
0,
o.
"'.
....
CO,
~J
1'0
---
'"
,2/
f!!
<")
C/
...
<").
-------- . ...
.~
.
"
..
"
"
"
.
"
"
~3~
:E3:..
ZO
~~
Z
~~
~;:;
..,
:;1
"
g
z
"1
/
/
"'"
/
I
\
\
1
/
/
/
\
\
/
m~
0"
b:-g
;!;(')
,,'"
"'~
~:s
z"
OM
~~
M'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~---
j\
~~_:3. ~..t
~b.~ ..
0","
~~2
'" M
;r:
00
z."
~"
ffl~
~~~~
LoI~Mn
-x';;o
~~Q
r~~
"'Z!
b>-~
~~~
~pVl
'11.
'(I,
'J
';1,
":.
m
z ~~ i3
r
)> o rT1i:r-~
;;0 ( o. :0 ~~
G) ~; ~ B~
m ~~~~S2
0 M ~:35i ~~ \
(f) .!:} ~ ~!<i:<~f1~
-I ~ '" z
0 a~~'t8f
m " z
'" "
z
""0 "
r ~
)>
Z
I \ y~ /
I \ \.-0' -: /';';.;!
\ \ / // / 'Y.rf:'
\ \ y, ",;..,. '.'
~: \ \l{///k:
\ I~// ~./ (
"/JI /' . ,/
\' I' .. ,"" /
~.!:}
~~
"c
"';r:
II U)
125 Q
.r
1f:1
0,
j
o.
:8
"!
~
z
<>
~
\, ~,
~
'-"
0.
~/
,J::..
EJ
;;0
o
o
.,.,
""0
~
Z
'"
.........
~...
.......'7~-
-------..
--
..----
/.....-----
./ ......."-...,"..........
/ ."'~1\,
I ",_,,,,,-- ...\ ..............,
I -,,'- ....,.
V..,., \ /
',.....,......--Y\
~~8
~~~
~O'"
z"'~
~8
1:1",
z
'-
...u)
H=~
- r
-r'1
I "
0,
(f') I?OO;O...... / I ~
ro
f/f'>\{OVf'
~~E
,,1--<
~8R
~.,,~
~g:
g~
z
'0'
....."..
d
0.
b
"'.
...,
'"
~J
cricket:
Comfortable Wireless"
0 ~
~ ~
~
g
"
p ;u
JE ~
~ ~ u;
0
-< Q Z
N ~ U)
0
v; 0
Z
.,.,
:;0 "tIII
fT10~(/)(?1
~p~~~
~fh~o~
~O~;;Q"'T'Jz
~~~;~~
~~~z~~
"O...;;:;J>c:v
~8~~g~
~~zf'1~~
.,c
~~~~~~
g~~~~
~Q~~8
1ji ;CUiz
w ~~~~~~
:j' ~~9.s::" 7"""
8. ~ ~~ ~. ~ VJ
8~~Q~~>--
~ . "J Q;j ~ 1;: g<
~ S Ei ~ ~.
... Ii> iir';,CI
~~ :a If
... '"
~ d
~ ~
(');0 (');;0
~~ ~~
~fj 28
vi" vi\)
'" M
" "
" '"
c c
~ ~
!?
o
.'
~
6160 CORNERSTONE COURT, SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
~ ~
~
~
'"
(f)
o
C
-i
I
m
r
m
<
)>
::!
o
z
-
CJJt/)
II:~
-r
. r1
I "
0,
o.
....
CJJ.
-
"'.
-
CJ1
)>
Z
-i
m
Z
Z
)>
:s:
o
c
z
::!
z
Q
o
m
-i
~
r
;::'t/)
JI: ~
-r
r. ~
0,
0.
-
N.
....
-
W
)>
U)
~ -,-
-
"-
'" CJJt/)
II:~
r- ~~S :::!~";j' -r
03 -r1
~::; c ~g~ I "
~f;J ~ffi( ~o\) 0,
~~ 00 CDZ~ -~
" V,,'\ g>'"
h~ r~ 8~ ,,;I~ o.
0", ~'" c'
~;;; "';;; ~~ 20
~~ rn ,.,,, 8~ ....
=;O<!1 ~o
~'" " 0'"
"
~ ~ :6 CJJ.
F
-
-' "'.
- "I. 10'-1 1/'" -
T.O. (P) EQUIPMENT .j::.
SHELTER
~:
"
"-Vi
b.~
'"
~
"-
~~2Q~
~~~~:
~~~~~
~O""'~Q
::tI~~>("T1
(>Z~;
~~~~
("T1VJr-V1
:dE~
ffi6z
Zz
..>
~
(J)(J)fTlz
gg~;-!
-jfTlSjfTl
IO_O
COC
PM;;o-
fTl- :-0
< :'J
)>ZZfTl
:::JO(J)r
~~I~
R> 0
Z
60' O'
T.Q, (P) CRICKET WIRELESS FAUX MONOPINE
55'-0.
T.O. (P) CRICKET WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS
26'-5"
(I-') HUGHT OF LOWEK BRANCHE.S
~';) ~-
:; ~~ ~~
(T1 ~ I ~~~
e ~. ~~ ~~g
1+. V1"" ~, .?;;'!j
(T1 ~ ~O :;IJ
C - ~~ fg~
~ ~i ~~ ~F!J~
~~ ~~ E0 V>
. ;;::6.-.------;{2.7'!J^"'>';\',[.~i'" ,,_..____1~___ ..-." .
"0> '.i,~ 1,(0'1";-' 0; . <> '"
gf-"'~~3- T'<'(p. C; ~ i}~~'r'-'- ..m.__ --
Q I 0 <;1 '/A'469
2'" : --'--z/ ~~ :!:
z ~ ) -<},.
Q <>
'~M ~~~
._'~,,-~/
fd~' ~ ~_. ,,41,;-'j; I
.61;;~ ~...-;, ~ "" "Q
p....[~ Q ~ 1:\ # Q
~-;.~' "U~~ \" ""''''
~f~ l{,c"t_o
,,~ {~L~'"
yr ,r
"-
-11
."'{)
D ,\'.f:!,(F-./_.tJ
"! .~o
II! 0 ..:~
..
w
1&J!'f'
"'--
-
..
It .... ..-
../Ii
...
tl\lirlt
~ .....
/:'
~i~~~~~~-F~
/<"
~,,'"
5
. fi, ~
. l'
...
~
~,;.
I'
oJ
,,-
"",
~~
'"~
8~
o:r
'Iii
\f
u
~
o.
!;;i"
~~
;g~
~~
md
~~
;,,,,
"''''
,,0
~~
'1") '1'
~ a ~ ~
~ ~ ~
g a ~
.3~F.i
~z~o
~~~;p~~~
"zz i"Si3
~~~ 8a~
~g~~~g
~"';;j "f;J=;O
8~~ ~Q~
5!""~ ~.~'"
-o^ -i ~
8~~~
~0:;1
",z
o
~~~
~
'6'
"'u
. -....
":
o
~
r
o
c
3
z
"
d
'"
'"
'"
5."
(') UJ en
00 )>
F~z
fTl I I
G'):iE '"
fTl fTl .....
(J)'"
;:;:j:t>
;;0
z
~
~
" ~
\I
~ ~ ~
~" '\..
~~. O~q .... ~.
~ilt)lt\~ Q " · -<J~';
_.. . -'", . .~.. . 1)
.,' ~~'.' ~
.~~~~-<> ~~~j . ~
'~~~<? ~;i7~ . >2
" Jft AI'.~_:1' 11 ~~~ ~."'" <ff~ .-.-..- --. ....--. ..)
~-~. . "I '---"--r -" ,,-- --. . ". ..
I If) ~,
~~ I~ ~.. ~~ If ~
U, ;u:-;u- ~~.3
~ o~. ~g: ~Pg
~b. ~ ~("5
);!~ y~S
~~ b~~
iC:(') 1'00)- ~
O;tl iC:1'Tl
~Q ~~
~~ ;.,
z
o
;;0
-i
I
m
r
m
~
::!
o
z
10'-1-
T.O. (p) EQUIPMENT
SflELTER
._.1
-
:3
f;J
o
r'"
o~
h
0'"
>0;
-....'"
"",
~~
-
:=:1-=0
'" ,,~
~~~ a~g
~g:; ~ ~M
(n~~ ~~~
:r:::ox" ......
~~i 8 ~8
!fl' :0..,
u
'! I'
i, <:;
i;~
..~ ~-
0.0
~~
ge
",r
_~l~
~
'"
~~
'"
~~
Kfl
...
-......::~~IF~
~~~~...:;-~ -
~
~
0>
U
':
"'
~
*
:iI
'"
'"
..
,--
~~
0>
_.~ I"
zo
gt+
"
~
._ z
..
-I
f!!",
:;!..,
.. Z
o.c:n
C!;~
~
~
26'-5.
(p) HE!GHT OF LOWER BRANCHES
'"
....,jh,
'"
0>
U
':
"'
~
~
:iI
:;1
J ....
~... "14...1
"I.
II;
'IJt1>....
...
... ....
..:'
w_
I
~
C
r
,-
"
"i
^
55'-0.
T.O. (P) CRICKET WIRELESS PANEL ANTENNAS
60' -0"
I.O. (P) CRICKET WIRELESS FAUX MONOPINE
m
X
-i
m
~
o
;;0
11
Z
(f)
I
(f)
()
I
m
o
C
r
m
-
Z
;-i
m
~ "" !-' !'" ,... ~ e8e88888~ 0
~~ '!j~ ~p~ ~ ~~ >:~ !!>'" C
"i1i ~~:tJ~5 '" 2", "'U
[:;2 '" z
~~ r"'IMffifT1~ gel "'" :s:
'@ "
~~:;:lJ'iii OJO ~S;; ~
",'" z" 0 '" m
~ ~~ >:tJI/I-o "0 o~ ~ C ~
:I:(')r"'Io r" ,,'" ~ ~ ~ 8 Z
Cr"'I):"Of;j ~" )2=;0 " " S; ~ -i
vI'!j ~g~~R- ~ 0 r ~ '" r
S;; 0,- '"'" 0", Z I 0 ~
",- "'0: Z " ~~ ;;! ~ m
'" ~I~ ~~~~~ >'" cJ~ '" '" '" '"
0: ro c ~ ~ 0: Q ;;: r
S c z ~ l\
gor-oz 8~ j;:'" '" Z m
r ~ *I "
> ZiC:-;;-nQ ii'" ~ ~
r ~ ~;ZlE~~ ~~ 0:S: ~ ",
~ S;; ~CII.><Z~ "", -;;;F ~
r1
~ > ' ~~~F fii1i ~'" '"
g~ oJ'" (5 0
0 ~ ~.pb5 "'"
158 c '" Z
~ ~~~; 1'", " ;;! "1
~ 0 d~ g~ ;;! "i ~ ~ ;;! ~ ~ ~ OJ Z
~~~~ Q ~ d ~ d I!: z u;
0 ~ 0 0 ~ '!i Vi
r ~~ :'1 :'1 :'1 :'1 :'1 :J: :r:
~ ~~ 0 -
0 o . 0
~,~~ '"
~ Iii 0:", 8 r t/) Nt/)
,,- 'M2 ~ 0 II" ~
" '" ~;~~ :r:
-.... ~o z r1
0: ~ " " '" " -r
'" r ~Or"'l:I: ~~ c 2 ~ '" '" '" ~ ~ 0 0 .",
c ~ V1$;~", Q :;1 F:i ~ 5 c I ..
'" S~ 0 ~ " " r 0,
'" 0 '" 0: Z Z 0: :J: '" ",
g ~\JO"""" .z -<
'" + ~ OJ;t ~n
~ !; ~.~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 0.
z '"
z o:~ '" ~ " ~
" " ~~~~ '"
" "'c 0 VI X ~
> On 0 ~
r Z Z "'0 OoJ 0 ~ c ~ -< ~ ~ ;c: -:
c 0 ~~~~ :"0 '" , '" '" '" '" '" 0
Z '" 0 I , 0 0 0 0 p
'" " 0 " t:
Z ~~~b z 0
fJ ~ ~ " !'i do ... "J.
g Ri ...,nl"l(l1 " '"
~ 0 ~o~~ ~ ~ Z
"'",~ ~
I I ~ "" !-' !-' !'" ,... '"
... -":.
on
I---
......
..'"~-
*~' ~~ ~~;i
~zm>
-:u -- ~ ::tIa~;c
;; ~ L -<'"5!!\'g
~ ~ 'l'Jgle~
~ I . 2i!~~
) ~~- g ~
~--------""~c:::rr;::::: .1 ~ .
\:;:..., ri..~~~
-
N
w ;:';J'!~~o.!:::;;:>I
~ ~~i?~~~
o. ~ ~~ 9 ~ W
8 f;::~Q~~""""'"
, ~~~~~.........-
~ G' ~~ ~
~ " " -.
~ ~ if~
'. !a if
cricket
Com for tab I e Wi rei e s s@
~
o
n'
'Ii
6160 CORNERSTONE COURT, SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
g~
z_
"
"'...
~ "
"'0
!4~'
~~
--1
4-'-9"
~
~
_i'l""
~;q,;;~
II .:j~.3
~g~~
ffiz~Q
----:r~"'~
-
-
~:3
'U"
Zf)~
~8;~
II :tJ~
~~~i
~~g5j
..Y' f'",
"~
"'i
cgg~~~
CZrr1:::U-
~~~~2
~~:tJ~R
Z ~
~
2"
I..:;..
10"
'----.
10'-1"f:
HEIGHT TO MATCH (E) TICKET BOOTH
~ U
~ g
g ~
O;tl ():::tJ
~~ ~~
3:;VI $:V)
S2~ ~8
vi" uI-o
g g
~ -
0 '"
'2
~
';:;- ~
~
~
p '"
i: '<
~ ~ u;
-< " (5
N '" Z
0 ~ t/)
on 0
z
fJ
~
fJ
~
'-
~
ii
0:
ii
0:
.
~
.
.",
~~
.
.::-
\
~
~S;
~~~.
;;;'"
l ~P!"
"''''U
>'" '
26~-:a ~V1
~~~~
8~~
>",~
ri~
'"
-<
;:JJ "'C:t~
S~~~~
~~~q~
~d~~~!
2l()"""<()~
~~8~~z
-<;:':;IZ""'''''
~~g~~~
~~~~~g
~~ z
8~:;!~g(')
. ~~-<2~
~~~~~
:.no -iM
:I:O(nO
Vi ;1;1__
"'Z
\":}}
. i
V\ <0 <en
I"""t 0
:::J 0 --)>
lC 0 ~Z
.-+
0) O~
'<
r
0) ::] -.....J
" CD )>
CD
fit en
:::c 0
0
0) c:
Co ro+
:J
() =E
';j CT>
t:
Q) en
< CD
iii" ...,
.-+ ::)
0) (')
()
0
)> -
-
<0 CT>
~ co
<0
~ CT>
V>
>
.....
.....
~
r')
=-
3
tD
=
.....
4.
\~'f'
VI <0 <en
I""'t 0
::J 0 -.>
~ 0 ~z
r+
LU -....I
'< ~~
r
LU
" 0>
CD
UJ en
:::0 0
0
LU C
a. r-+-
';j
() ~
':J CD
c:
or en
< CD
(ji" ~
r+ :::J
LU (')
()
0
)> -
-
<0 CD
-"" co
<0
-"" CD
U>
n
g..-..c
3
0' I.
~n
-
CD
~
~m
~ ,...-t-
'~I
\;::}
~
~-~
o ~o I
~(!)-
s''a G') ·
(I) !:; _ ,-,,- n-
@~~.
i ii)> ...,
.g r- ... II T
<: ~. ~
0:2..(1)
(I) a. ~
o (!)
~.~.c
3 -
(hgo
stn-
3}0
oW
Ci)
'2:
(!)
<0 <en
:J 0
0 -. )>
lC 0 ~Z
-
IoU -t~
'<
r
IoU ::T~
" CD)>
<D
tit CD en
;0 0
0
IoU c:
a. r-+-
. ::T
() ~
~ CD
c:
IoU CJ)
r-+-
< CD
(ii" ..,
- :J
IoU
() ()
0
> -
-
<0 CD
.... co
<0
.... CD
w
I
I
T
.
I
i
-~_.
'-:-'__ ,I
, -~-
-- .
-~.-
..
....
....
'en
>
z
.:..,
'""
(;oJ
i>
-.
~-~..~
,
. . --1.---_1
"---~
'.
I ".
.-- --.:
,
, I
, ,
1--1
.
CJ') ~+
'.
. -. "
-' ~
' - :J
OJ .,.. ~
i
_m_ _. .~~
CJ')
..-t" Z
~
(I)
:J I
~ C) tJ:J lC '"
0 m t'"'t"
:;0 0 ~ :::r ....
II 0 II -.....
I II 0 I
y \0 , g
0'\ ex>
.. g \0 I >
~ g ex> -
-
I 0'\ ~
.:.., ..... I n
~ 0 ~ c. =-
0'" 3
= ~ 3 I'D
C. =
0" 0" -
-'~' 3 3 ()\
.. .'--- , .
-111
(J')
_0
tC
:J
OJ
~
..,
ro
2B G') CJ:I :J
8 m tC
:::a ~ t"T
" C =r
I " "
\C 0
0\ I
co a-
a- \C
a- I
I co
..... 0\
8 I
\C Co
a. 0\ C"
0- a. 3
3 0-
3
(,J) ~
-.
to
::::s ....
OJ
- -t
(,J) ::E:
t"'T
....,
(1) ~
::::s
~ G) co to
0 m t"'T
;0 0 ~ =r Z
II 0 II
I II 0 I
\0 I '3' --...
0'\ (X)
g \0 I
g (X) ....
I 0'\
..... I a. --...
0 \0
0 0'\ CT
c.. c.. 3
C"
3 C"
3
. 19.87.004
Attachment c;.
19.87 .OM . Inland Parcels Subarea.
Development of land designated as industria]
general ir. !.his subarea is subject to the I - general
industrial Lone. Chapter 19.46 CVMC. except as
modified by the provisions of this specific plan.
Development of land designated as commercial
- thoroughfare in this subarea is subject to the cen-
tra] commercial zone with precise plan modifying
district as described in Chapters 19.36 and 19.56
CYMC except as modified by this specific plan.
(000. 2613, 1994; Ord. 2532, 1992; Res. JJ903.
1985).
19.87.005 Faivre Street Subarea.
Development in this subarea is subject to the
regulations of the San Diego County zoning code
for general impact industria] use, zoned M-54 (FP).
manufacturing industria] zone with floodplain
overlay zone, except as modified by this specific
plan. (Oni. 2532. 1992).
. 19.87.006 PalomarlBay Boulevard Subarea.
Development in this subarea is subject to the 1-
L-P, limited industrial zone with precise plan mod-
ifying district., as described in Chapters 19.44 and
19.56 CVMC, except as modified by this specific
plan. (Ord. 2532, 1992).
Chapter 19.89
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES
Sections:
19.89.010 Purpose.
19.89.020 Scope.
19.89.030 Definitions.
19.89.040 Applicability to city property and
rights-of-way.
]9.89.050 Permit processing.
19.89.060 Development criteria.
19.89.070 Variance.
19.89.080 Abandonment.
19.89.090 Severability.
19.89.010 Purpose.
The purpose of these regulations and guidelines
is to assure that wireless telecommunication net-
works are completed with the fewest possible facH-
ities.. in the least visible fashion. and with the least
dismptive impact on neigbborhoods and communi-
ties within the city of ChuIa Vista. The regulations
set Conh in this chapter are adopted to serve, pro-
tect and promote the public bea1th, safety and wel-
fare, and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic
qualities of the city of ChuIa Vista, as set tonh in
the goals, objectives and policies of the general
plan, while concurrently allowing for the orderly
and efficient development of a wireless telecom-
munication infrastructure in accordance with the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. (Ord.
2895 iI, 2003).
19.89.020 Scope.
This chapter shalJ apply to all wireless telecom-
munications facilities anywhere in the city of
Chula visLi (DId. 2895 i 1.2003).
19.89.030 DefinitioDS.
Unless otherwise stated. the following defini-
tions pertain to this chapter.
"Antenna" means a device or system of wires.
poJes. rods, dishes or other devices of similar func-
tion. used for the transmission and/or reception of
radio frequency signals for wireless telecommuni-
cations, as described in the TeJecommunications
Act of 1996.
"Antenna array" means a set of one or more
whips. panels. discs or other devices used for the
transmission or reception of radio frequency sig-
nals as part of a wireless telecommunications sys-
tem. It may incJude an omni-cfjrectionaJ antenna
(A9VIsed , 104)
19-266
Chula Vista Municipal Code
19.89.050
.~"- .
("ship"), a directional antenna ("panel") and para-
bofic antenna ("disc"). It does not incIude the sup-
pon structure.
"Cellular" means an 'analog or digital wireless
telecommunications technology that is based on a
system of interconnected neighboring transmission
and/or reception sites.
"Co-location" means the use of a common wire-
less telecommunications facility or common site
by two or more service providers. or use by one
provider of a single site for two or more technolo-
gies. It is also called "site sharing:'
Equipment Facility. Also called "equipment,"
"equipment enclosure" or "cabinet." Any structure
or device used to contain ancillary equipment for a
wireless telecommunications facility, such as cabi-
nets. shelters, additions to existing Sb11cturcs, ped-
estals, and other devices serving similar purposes.
Typically, it includes an air conditioning unit, a
heating unit, electrical supply, telephone hook-up
and back-up power supply.
Fac~e-Mounted .AJttenna. Also called "build-
. mg-m~unted~' or "surface-mounted:' An antenna",
" . that is. directly ,attachedto,.,a,b!JJJding. ~() thefacacje
of a bllilding, or, tethe. "'~jde';of,a."1Othcrj;:b11~ture
such as a watcrtank. 'church s~ple, freestanding
sign~ streetlight, otsimiJar s~cture.:,'~n~iilite!lna
- . ~ .
,attac:hect to, Jhe roof or top of a structure is Dot a
facade-mounted.
"Ground-mounted" means mounted to a pole.
monopole. tower. or other freestanding Sb11cture
specifically constructed for the purpose of suppon-
ing an antenna.
"Lattice tower" means a self-supporting struc-
ture which consists of cross-bracing of structural
steel to support antennas and related transmission
equipment.
o'Monopole" means a structure composed of a
singJe spire, pole, or tower used to support anten-
nas or related wireless telecommunications equip-
ment Hag poles of typical height. diameter, and
location are not considered monopoles.
"Mounted" means attached to or supported by.
"Persona] communications service (PeS)"
means digital. Jow-power. high frequency com-
mercial wireless radio communication technology
that has the capacity for multiple communications
services and the routing of caUs to individuals.
regardless of location.
"Roof-mounted.. means mounted above the
eave line of a building or structure.
"Stealth facility" means any wireless telecom-
munications facility that is designed to blend into
the SUITOunding environment, and is visually unob-
trusive. E'lamples may include architectura11y
screened roof-mounted antennas; facade-mounted
antennas painted and treated as architectural ele-
ments to blend with the existing building, thereby
concealing the antenna; or artificial trees, such as
monopalms and monopines; and flag poles of typ-
ical height. diameter, and location_
"TCA" means the federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996.
o'Telecommunications" means the transmission,
between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing (including
voice. data, image, graphics, and video), without
change in. the form or content of the infonnation.
Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Also
called "wireless facility" or "facility." A facility
consisting of any commercial antenna, monopole,'
microwave dish, and/or other related equipment
(including software) necessary for the transmission
and/or reception of cellular. personal communica-
tion service, and/or data radio communications.
(Ord. 2895 ~ 1, 2003).
.1!,.89.D40. ~,~ pplicability .to, city property and'
~:, ,~;.'-:-:,,"tJ,ghts-or.way.-~.. -'- '
_Notwithstanding' CVMG-~f9.89.020. wireless
telecommunication facilities located on city prop-
eny, rights-of-way, or other possessory and noo-
possessory interests in land shall not be subject to
this chapter. Regulation of such facilities shall be
accomplished through administrative rules, poli-
cies, programs, or agreements approved by the city
council and drafted consistent with the general pol-
icies established in CVMC 19.89.010. (Ord. 2895
~ I, 2003).
19.89.050 Penult processing.
A conditional use permit (CUP) as provided for
in this title is required for all wireless telecommu-
nications facilities subject to this chapter. Before a
pennit will be granted, the operator or proposed
operator of a wireless telecommunications facility
must be specified and such operator must be
legally approved by aU applicable state and federal
authorities to provide wireless telecommunications
in the city.
The following wireless telecommunications
facilities applications may be processed adminis-
tratively by the city's zoning administrator: stealth
facilities that do not exceed the maximum building
height allowed in a panicular zone; facilities that
are facade-mounted and do not exceed the height
of the parapet wall or roof line of the building; or a
roof-mounted facility that is screened behind a
19-267
(Revised 1104)
19.89.060
solid material on all four sides and does not exceed
the maximum height of the zone. All other wireless'
telecommunications facilities applications for con-
ditional use permits, including any facility located
on a vacant or residentially used lot in a single-
family or two-family residential zone. shall require
public hearings with the city of ChuJa Vista plan-
ning commission.
A denial of any application for a wireless tele-
communication facility shall be based on the
grounds of safeguarding the public's health, safety
or welfare, be in writing, and set forth findings
specifying the evidence for such denial. (Ord. 2895
~ 1,2(03).
19.89.060 Deve10pmeut criteria.
1be following is development criteria for all
wireless telecommunications facilities located
within the city:
A. Design Standards.
1. Height. Wireless telecommunications
.facilities are subject to the height limitation stipu-
lated in this title and shaJl be as short as teChnolog-
ically feasible. Notwithstanding the applicaIion of.
such height limitations, the planning commission
(but not the zoning administrator) may allow
stealth design facilitj~ to exceed the zone district
height limit upon a specific finding that the pro-
posed height is the only technologically feasible
option for providing service to an area.
2. Stealth Technology and Design. Wireless
telecommunications facilities shall utilize all prac-
tical means to conceal or minimize the visual
impact thereof, including:
a. Smallest Technology. The facility shall
use and maintain the physicaUy smallest practicaJ
devices (0 achieve the needs of the wireless tele-
communications network.
b. Most Efficient Technology. The fadl-
i ty shall use and maintain the most efficient
devices to achieve the needs of the wireless tele-
communications network. In this context. "most
efficient" means using the smallest number of
facilities needed to achieve the needs of the net-
work.
c. Stealth Design. The facility shall be
d~igned to be visually unobtrusive and blend into
the surrounding area in a manner compatible with
the local community character. Sites shall be main-
tained in good repair and appearance. and. to the
extent possible, shall be improved and upgraded on
a regular basis. AIJy proposed change chat deviates
from the original approval shall be submitted to the
city's zoning administrator for over-the-counter
review and approval.
3. Co-Location. Wireless telecommunica-
tion facilities shall be co-located to the extent prac-
ticable. They should also be constnJcted and sited
to accommodate the future co- location of other
facilities. Conditional use permit apptications for
wireless telecommunications facilities that are not
to be co-Ioca.ted shall contain a written statement
that a good faith effort was made to attempt co-
location at another site. Such statement shall also
declare the justification for deciding not to co-
locate.
Likewise, conditional use pennit applications
for wireless telecommunication facilities that are
not to be constructed and sited to accommodate the
future co-location of other facilities shall contain a
written statement declaring the justification for
failing to do so.
Co-location is discouraged, but not prohib-
ited, for sites located on a residential lot in a single-
family or two-family residential zone.
4. Parking DisplacemenL Wireless telecom-
munications facilities shall not reduce available
parking space below that which is required by
applicable zoning laws.
5. Setbacks. AU components of aU wireless
telecommunications facilities shall meet the set-
back requirements of the zoning district in which it
is proposed to be located.
6. Colors and Materials. Colors and materi-
als shall be chosen to minimize visibility. All exter-
nally visible elements of a facility, including the
antenna and supporting equipment, shall be of a
neutral color that is identical to, or closely compat-
ible with. the color of the supporting structure
and/or its surroundings, so as to make the antenna
and related equipment as visually unobtmsi ve as
possible. Proposed colors shall be identified by
manufacturer and color name or number.
7. Visual Integration of Antennas. Facade-
mounted antennas shall be architecturally inte-
grated into the style and character of the structure,
and painted and tex.tured to match or complement
the existing structure. Roof-mounted antennas
shall be consb11cted at .the minimum height possi-
ble to serve the provider's service area. shall be
designed to minimize visibility from the surround-
ing areas. and painted and textured to match or
complement the existing stJ'Uctnre or building. ,
8. Freestanding Facilities. Freestanding
facilities, including ground-mounted antennas and
monopoleS. are discouraged and may be used only
when no other alternative is feasible. When
(Revised 1/04.)
19-268
Chula Vista Municipal Code
] 9.89.080
allowed, freestanding facilities shall be designed to
the. minimum functional. height and width. Lattice
towers are prohibited.
9. Landscaping. When portions of the facil~
ity are exposed to public view, they shall be land-
scaped with visual buffering, such as plant
materials, walls and/or mounds that screen the
view of the facility from public rights-of-way, pub-
lic parklands and nearby residential properties.
Existing mature growth trees and natural land-
forms on the site shall be preserved to the maxi-
mum extent feasible. Native plantings are to be
used 10 the maximum extent possible.
10. Equipment Enclosures. All equipment
shall be placed completely underground when fea-
sible or located inside an existing building. If such
placement is not feasible, the equipment shall be
completely enclosed within a solid-walled enclo-
sure or building. Enclosures may not exceed 10
feet in height measured from the base of the foun-
dation unless a greater height is necessary to max-
imize architectural integration and shall be
screened by landscaping. Any visible cabinets,
cables, air conditioning units, fencing, etc., shall be
painted and textured to match the surrounding area
so as to minimize visibility.
11. Preventive Design. All facilities shalJ be
designed to be resistant to and minimize opponuni-
ties for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism,
graffiti, and other conditions that would result in
hazardous conditions or visual blight.
12. Access to Facilities. All wireless tele-
communication facilities shall be accessed. from
nonresidential streets or rights-of-way to the maxj.
mum extent practical. Any constructed access shaH
be sited to avoid residential areas, streets or rights-
of-way to the maximum extent practical.
13. Construction Methods. All wireless tele-
communication' facilities shall be built in accor-
dance with unifonn building cooe standards and, to
the extent feasible, be protected against damage by
fire. flooding. and earthquake. Reasonable mea-
sures shall be taken to keep wireless facilities in
Operation in the event of a natural disaster.
14. Signs. Other than required safety warn-
ing signs, no signs shall be placed on facilities or
equipment.
] 5. Modifying or Upgrading Facilities.
When modifying or upgrading wireless facilities,
existing antennas and equipment shall, to the
extent feasible, be replaced with antennas and
equipment of equal or greater technical capacity
and reduced size so as to reduce visual and noise
impacts.
B. Operation and Maintenance.
1. Security Lighting. Security lighting shall
be kept to a minimum. Any security. lighting that
may spill into residential zoning districts is dis-
couraged and shall onJy be activated by a motion
detector.
2. Grounds Maintenance. All facilities and
related equipment shall be maintained in good
working order and free from trash, debris, graffiti
and any fann of vandalism. Any damaged equip-
ment. shall be repaired or replaced within 30 calen-
dar days of sustaining such damage. Graffiti shall
be removed within 48 hours of being notified by
the city or others of its existence. Facilities contain-
ing landscaping elements shaJJ be maintained in
good condition at all times. Damaged, dead or
decaying plant materiaJs shall be removed and
replaced within 30 calendar days of sus~ning such
damage.
3. Facility Maintenance. Routine mainte-
nance of equipment located in residential zones or
within 100 feet of a residential district, not requir-
ing the facility to be taken "off line," shall be con-
ducted only during the weekday hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. In other areas, and
when a facility must be taken "off line," routine
maintenance may be conducted at any time. Emer-
gency repairs and maintenance shall be conducted
only in the cases of power outages and equipment
failure or malfunction.
4. Noise Attenuation. Each wireless tele-
communications facility shall be operated in a
manner that will minimize noise impacts to sur-
rounding residents and persons using nearby paries,
trails, and similar recreation areas. To achieve this
objective, all air conditioning units and any other
equipment emitting noise that is audible from
beyond the property line on which a facility is
located shall be encJosed or equipped with noise
attenuation devices that reduce the noise to the
lowest feasible level. Backup generators shall only
be operated during periods of power outages or for
testing. (Ord. 2895 ~ 1,2003).
19.89_070 Variance.
Any person may apply for a variance subject to
the requirements and conditions of this title. (Ord.
2895 ~ I, 2003).
19.89.080 Abandonment.
A. Prompt Removal. Notwithstanding provi-
sions to the contrary found elsewhere in this title, a
wireless telecommunications facility is considered
abandoned and shall be promptly removed as pro-
19-269
(Revised 1104)
. 19.89.090
vided herein if it .ceases to provide wireless tele-
communication services for 180 or more days.
Suc:~: removal shall be in accordance with proper
he. . i1 and safety requirements and aU ordinances,
rules, and regulations of the city.
B. Notice, Appeal and Hearing. A written
notice of the detennination of abandonment. as
noted in subsection (A) of this section. shaU be sent
by certified first class mail. return receipt
requested. or personally delivered to the operator
of the wireless telecommunications facility at said
operator's business address on me with the city or
the operator's agent for service of process on file
with the California Secretary of State. Service shall
be effective on the date the notice was signed for or
received. If the mailed notice is returned unsigned.
service shall be deemed effective three business
days after the mailing of a duplicate notice by reg-
ular first-class mail. The notice shall explain the
consequences of failing to remove the facility and
identify all hearing/appeal rights.
The operator may appeal the detennination of
abandonment within 10 business days of being
served with the notice. After receiving the appea4
city staff shall schedule a hearing on the matter to
be conducted before the planning commis~on at
which time the operator may present any relevant
evidence on the issue of abandonmenL The plan-
ning commission may affinn, reverse, or modify
with or without conditions the determination of
abandonment and shall make written findings in
suppon of its decision. TIle decision of the plan-
ning commission shaH be finaL
C. Nuisance. Any wireless telecommunications
facility determined to be abandoned and not
removed within 30 calendar days from the date of
notice. or where an appeal has been timely filed.
within such time as prescribed by the planning
commission fonowing its fmal determination of
abandonment. shall be in violation of this chapter.
and the operator of such facility shall be subject to
the penalties prescribed in this title and CVMC
Title I. Facilities detennined to be abandoned and
not removed within the time limits prescribed
herein. are deemed to be a nuisance. and notwith-
standing the procedure described in subsection (8)
of this section, may be abated as a nuisance in any
manner provided by law. (Ord. 2895 ~ 1.2(03).
19.89.090 Severability..
If any section, subsection, sentence. clause,lphrase or word of this chapter is for any reason
determined to be unconstimtional. invalid. void or
unenforceable by a coon of comperentjurisdiction.
such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of dtis chapter.
The city council hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection. subdivision,
paragrnph. sentence, dause. phrase or word thereof
irrespecti ve of the fact that anyone or more sec-
tions, subsections. paragraphs. sentences. cJauses.
phrases or words be declared unconstitutional.
invalid, void or unenforceable, (Oni. 2895 ~ 1,
2(03).
* Code reviser's note: Ordinance 2895 added this sec-
tion as CVMC 19.89.080. It has been editorially
renumbered to avoid duplication.
(ReviSed 1104)
19-270
Attachment ?
~~~
-.-
~~= =:E~
cm Of
CHULA VISTA
P I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
APPLICATION APPENDIX 8
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 supplier.
Southwestern Community College District
Owner
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 represent you before the City in this matter.
Franklin Orozco
Meridian Telecom, Inc,
5, Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No~
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No ~ Yes _ If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~{~
-.-
~""""-~...,;;:...o;;
~~~--
P I ann
n g
& Building
. Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
cm Of
CHUlA VISTA
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 (12) 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: 4-28-06
Print or
anklin Orozco
type name of Contractor/Applicant
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: ..s-
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: DRC-05-37; Consideration of an application for a new 30-
foot high pole sign and canopy fascia design with signage for a service station
located at the northwest comer of "L" Street and Broadway- Applicant:
Conoco Phillips
Conoco Phillips, the parent company of Union 76 Service Stations, has commenced an effort to
modernize existing service stations identification signs and is requesting approval of a new 30 foot
freestanding sign. The modernization program also includes new canopy design and signage.
The Design Review Committee denied the request by a 3-0-0-2 vote. The applicant has chosen to
appeal the decision pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.583, which allows for the
applicant to file an appeal of the decision of the Design Review Committee to the Planning
Commission within 10 working days after the decision was rendered.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class II
categorical exemption ( accessory structures) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the June 5, 2006 decision of the Design Review Committee
denying DRC-05-37.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The subject property is a 22,215 square foot comer lot that consists of a service station building and
two gas canopy islands. The project site is located on the northwest comer of Broadway and "L"
Street which is in the Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) Zone. (Attachment 1)
Zoning
General Plan
Land Use
Northeast:
North:
Southeast:
Southwest:
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Thoroughfare
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
7111 and AutoZone
Retail Building
EconoLube
Retail Building
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
3. Background
Municipal Code Section 19.60.560 (B) states that each lot shall be allowed one freestanding sign
subject to certain limitations such as the height of a freestanding (pole) sign. This maximum height
of signs may be reduced by the Design Review Committee. Although the Zoning Administrator
could have made a decision on this item pursuant to CVMC 19.14.582 (L), staff decided that the
Design Review Committee should review the applicant's proposal because of previous discussions
by both the Planning Commission and City Council expressing their desire to reduce sign clutter
along the Broadway corridor and design manual policies discourage pole signs.
The Design Review Committee first heard this item on March 7, 2005. At that time the Design
Review Committee was concerned with the height of the pole sign as well as the appropriateness of
the width and color of the canopy fascia redesign. (Attachment 2) At that time, the Design Review
Committee voted 4-0-0-1 to continue the project, directing the applicant to address the following
design issues:
1. Provide a visual presentation of 76 Gas Station sites that have already implemented the
proposed sign program.
2. Minimize the width and color of the orange banding to be more aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with the existing conditions of the surrounding area.
3. Reduce the height of the pole sign and strongly consider a monument sign design in lieu of
what was proposed.
The applicant resubmitted their application for Design Review Committee reconsideration in May
2006. On June 5,2006, the Design Review Committee re-heard the project. As requested by the
DRC: the applicant provided visual documentation (in the form of photographs) of a 76 Service
Station that had recently installed the proposed 76 Gas Station sign program. However, the applicant
chose not to re-design the freestanding sign or the width and color of the proposed canopy banding.
Rather, the applicant agreed to reduce the pole sign to 30-feet but not add the orange banding to the
service station building. Staff supported the new proposal on the condition that:
1. The pole sign be lowered to a height consistent with the height of the canopies and lower
than that of the service station building.
2. The fayade of the building be modified to better complement the architectural design of the
canopies.
However, the DRC still had concerns and therefore denied the application by a vote of 3-0-0-2.
(Attachment 3)
4. Analysis
The proposed project consists of: One (1) new 30 foot high double column freestanding pole sign
and two (2) new 36 inch canopy fascia with new canopy logo signs. Conoco Phillips would like to
maximize the sign height of it's gas stations. For that reason, they initially proposed a pole sign at
the maximum allowable height of 35 feet. They have since reduced the pole sign to 30 feet.
(Attachment 4)
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
Despite the recommendation of the Design Review Committee and staff that a lower profile sign
would be more appropriate at this location, Conoco Phillips still would like to place a pole sign at
this location (there is currently only a lower profile price sign at this location). However, they have
agreed to reduce the proposed pole sign from 35 to 30 feet in height.
The Design Review Committee thought that a monument sign, in lieu of a pole sign, would be more
appropriate at this location because:
1. It is not adjacent to a freeway
2. It is along an important thoroughfare of Chula Vista that is saturated with large and
ostentatious signs.
3. A tall freestanding columnar pole sign is not compatible in scale or design with the existing
site.
To see if a pole sign would provide any more visibility than a lower profile sign, staff conducted a
field visit to the site. The site is not visible from the freeway exit nor is the 32-foot Shell Gas Station
pole sign that is directly across the street. The Shell pole sign is visible at approximately the same
point that one is able to see the existing 76 gas station price sign and therefore the needs of the gas
station could be accomplished with a lower profile sign.
The width and color of the proposed canopy banding is a standard part of 76 Gas Stations
modernization effort and therefore Conoco Phillips would prefer not to modify the width or color of
the proposed canopies. Conoco has decided to eliminate the 48-inch orange banding that was
proposed to be added to the service station building. As discussed with the applicant by the DRC,
the addition of the orange banding to the service station was not compatible in nature, character or
design with the mansard roof of the building. It would be more appropriate for this site to renovate
the existing service station building in a manner that is consistent with the design (scale, proportion,
colors and materials) of the proposed canopies.
The Design Review Committee concluded that a pole sign, of any height, and the design of the
canopy are not complementary to the service station design. They stated that a monument sign that
would be architecturally compatible with the service station and would be more appropriate because
the station is not next to a freeway. They noted that the area is already saturated with pole signs. In
addition, the Committee denied the canopy design because the design and colors of the canopy were
not designed to be an architectural extension of the service station building.
CONCLUSION:
In an effort to avoid a disorderly display and to enhance the visual quality of signage, the Planning
Commission, the City Council, the Design Manual, and the development plans of the Broadway
corridor all strongly discourage pole signs. The Design Manual states that signage should be
characterized by restraint and designed as supportive elements to land use.
Staff recognizes that the new signage at this location is due to an overall re-branding and re-imaging
modernization effort by Conoco Phillips (76 Gas Station). However, staff concurs with the concerns
of the Design Review Committee. A comprehensive sign concept that considers the character of the
existing structures and relates to the site upon which they are placed in terms of architecture, scale,
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
colors and materials would be preferable. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission affirm the decision of the Design Review Committee denying DRC-05-37.
Attachments
I. Locator Map
2. DRC Minutes March 7, 2005
3. DRC Minutes June 5, 2006
4. Photos
5. Appeal Application and Disclosure
6. Resolution DRC-05-37
J:\Planning.Case File~-05 (FY 04-05)\DRC\Public HearingDRC-05-37\StaffReportIDRC-05-37 Appeal to PC StaffReport.doc
A\\~c~~t- .1.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR PROJECT A & S Engineering
C) APPLICANT:
PROJECT 898 B d
ADDRESS: rea way
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale DRC-05-37
AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DESIGN REVIEW
Request: Existing Union 76 station proposing to remove existing
pole sign to install a new 35' h pole sign and new building
facade.
Related cases: NONE
J:\planning\carlos\locators\drc0537.cdr 07.05.06
14,tt~v\'1 \'Y\en+ ~
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-4-
March 7, 2005
2. DRC-05-38
76 Gas Station
3995 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, CA
Desiqn review for a new 35-ft.pole siqn to replace 32-ft.
hiqh existinq pole siqn. The proposal also includes the
installation of new buildinq and canopy fascia with color
and siqnaqe and (1) new 6-ft. tall monument price siqn.
3. DRC-05-37
76 Gas Station
898 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA
Desiqn Review Committee approval to replace an
existinq 32-ft. hiqh pole siqn with a new 35-'ft. hiqh pole
siqn. The proposal also includes the installation of new
buildinq and canopy fascia with color and siqnaqe.
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that Ms. Lopez would be presenting both projects DRC-05-38 and
DRC-05-037 together since they are similar issues at different locations.
Ms. Lynnette Lopez Associate Planner reviewed DRC-05-037 project first. The
representative for the 76 Gas Station is proposing a pole sign at the 898 Broadway, Chula
Vista. This proposal will replace existing 32-ft. pole signs at two separate locations 898
Broadway and 3995 Bonita Road. Staff noted that 898 Broadway is located at the
northwest corner of Broadway and L Street. A competing gas station directly across the
street currently does have a pole sign of equivalent height. In an effort to modernize and
ensure consistency of all their 76 Gas Stations the parent company is proposing one 35-ft.
freestanding pole sign at this location as well as one new 36-inch canopy sign, one new
4B--inch building fascia, one new canopy sign, one new wall and one reface to an existing
sign. Staff noted that based upon previous discussion and policies that discourages pole
signs staff has referred the request for a pole sign to DRC to determine whether or not a
pole sign proposed at the maximum height is appropriate at this location. Ms. Lopez
indicated that there is no proposed change to the existing arrangement of structures on
the site. The proposed pole sign will be in the same location of the existing one. The
proposed signage materials and colors would be consistent with the existing architecture
colors and materials on site. Ms. Lopez discussed DRC-05-038 the pole sign application
for the 3995 Bonita Road location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Committee recommends that the applicant provide a lower profile
sign in lieu of the proposed 35-ft. freestanding pole sign.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
The committee discussed the design elements of the canopy and asked for clarification.
J :\HOME\PLANN I N G\ROSEMARJ E\DRC\MI N-3-7 -05
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-5-
March 7, 2005
Mr. Ahmad Gaderhi with A. & S. Engineering (207 W. Alameda, Ste. 203, Burbank, CA)
stated that Conoco Phillips, were the owners of the 76 brand: As of last July, they've
started re-branding and re-imagining their sites throughout the nation. The re-imaging
consists bf a new look for the canopy, the building, and also replacing the existing 76 ball
signs with a standard format pole sign. Mr. Gaderhi described the renovations. The
existing roofline would remain the same they would be wrapping the canopy with new
fascia. While the City's municipal code allows for the pole sign, the applicant was aware
, that it was at the discretion of the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Gaderhi mentioned the Shell Station on Broadway has an existing pole sign. Gas
stations are a competitive business and the owners have the impression if they go down to
a monument sign it might affect their business adversely. If they retain the pole sign or the
height it would help them to remain competitive. The 35-ft. sign was presented because
the height is allowed in the code. However, they were willing to work with staff and the
committee to come up with a solution that would improve the signage and perhaps modify
the height. Mr. Gaderhi further stated it was also their intent to clean up the entire site and
remove any miscellaneous signs on the premises.
Chair Araiza remarked that it would have been nice to have a visual presentation of the
work that has already been completed.
Mr. Gaderhi responded even though they have been permitted for 50 -70 stations they
have just actually finished a renovation in Pasadena so they did not have any photos to
bring with them.
Member Drake indicated there were no landscape plans included in the package; just a
notation saying that there would be landscaping in the planter area and along the pole
sign. The landscape will be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape
Manual.
Mr. Gaderhi replied that they didn't have a chance to get the landscape plans together, but
they would be happy to resubmit them to the DRC for their review and approval.
Member Drake stated the landscape in the existing bed would need to be replaced
because it is old.
Vice Chair Alberdi said that he personally was against pole signs and would recommend
that the applicant consider a maximum 8-ft. monument sign. Another concern was with
the thickness of the canopy it was too wide and the addition of the orange band. In his
opinion, just adding the fogo to the canopy would be more appropriate. Vice Chair Alberdi
recommended that the pole signs be reduced to more of a monument sign scale.
Member Magallon concurred with Vice Chair Alberdi. In her opinion, the pole signs were
too large.
Member Drake noted that the Broadway Street corridor was a prominent one within the
city. She personally believed that a large pole sign was not in the best interest of the city,
and would like to see a scaled down sign. She also felt that it would have been beneficial
to have a visual presentation even if it were a mock up of the signs and canopies to get a
better feel on what was being proposed.
J :\HOME\PLANNI NG\ROSEMARI E\DRC\MI N-3-7 -05
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-6-
March 7, 2005
Chair Araiza agreed with his colleagues. He felt that the project should be continued so
that the signs can be redesigned. The height and scale should be reduced. Also if
monument signs were proposed the design should show variation. In addition, the
applicant should bring a presentation of an existing project that was completed so that the
ORC can get a better feel of what is being proposed.
MSC (Araiza/Magallon) (4-0-0-1) to continue DRC-05-38 project to unspecified date
to allow applicant to provide an enhanced visual presentation of proposed canopy
and monument sign. Motion Carried. -
MSC (Araiza/Magallon) (4-0-0-1) to continue DRC-05-37 project to unspecified date
to allow applicant to provide an enhanced visual presentation of proposed canopy
and monument sign. Motion carried.
J:\HOME\PLANNI NG\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-3-7 -05
.A'~c*'~t- 3
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-7-
June 5, 2006
4. DRC-05-37
Conoco Phillips 76 Gas Station
898 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Reconsideration of a new 35-ft. pole siqn. modification
of the gas island canopy. and qas price sign.
Continued from May 15, 2006
5. DRC-05-38
Conoco Phillips 76 Gas Station
3995 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, CA
Reconsideration of a new 35-ft. pole siqn to replace an
existing 32-ft. pole sign. modification to the qas island
canopy and qas price sign.
Continued from May 15, 2006
Staff Presentation:
Ms. Lynnette Lopez, Associate Planner stated Conoco Phillips, the parent company of 76
Gas Station has commenced an effort to modernize and ensure consistency of signage at
each of the 76 Gas Stations in the area by implementing a standardized sign program.
The proposed projects consists of:
898 Broadway location: One new 30-foot high double column freestanding pole sign
and one new 36-inch canopy fascia with a new canopy logo sign.
3995 Bonita Road location: One 30-foot high double column freestanding pole sign, to
replace an existing single pole freestanding sign, one new 36-inch canopy fascia with a
new canopy logo sign, and one new 6-foot high monument price sign.
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had previously reviewed these items on
March 7, 2005. At that time the DRC was concerned with the height of the pole signs as
well as the appropriateness of the width and color of the proposed canopies.
Ms. Lopez stated the width and color of the proposed canopy banding is a standard part
of the 76 Gas Stations modernization effort and therefore Conoco Phillips would prefer to
not modify the width or color of the proposed canopy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Committee approve DRC-05-37 and DRC-05-38 and finds that the
canopy fascia is compatible with the existing sites and that a lower profile sign be required
in lieu of the proposed 30-ft. freestanding pole signs.
Aoolicant Presentation:
Mr. Ahmad Gaderhi, with A. & S. Engineering (207 West Alameda Ave. #203, Burbank,
CA 91502) stated that he agreed with staff's presentation and would hope that they could
come to some agreement that would allow for a pole sign at the 898 Broadway location.
J :\HOME\PLANNI NG\ROSEMARI E\DRC\MI N-6-5-06
:--~'.
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-8-
June 5, 2006
He noted that a year ago the pole sign that was there fell during the storm and was never
re-erected. Mr. Ghaderi commented that he would be willing to reduce the pole sign to 20-
feet if the DRC was agreeable. He further added that they had elected not to add the
orange banding to the buildings per staff's recommendation.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Chair Alberdi asked for clarification from staff on that recommendation.
Ms. Lopez explained that staff informed the applicant that the orange banding overlaid
onto the existing mansard roof was not compatible with the architectural style and an
exterior fac;:ade renovation might be more appropriate.
Chair Alberdi thanked staff for the clarification and agreed with staff's assessment. The
ORC understood the applicant's desire to modernize the gas stations but had some
concerns about the proposals.
Member Bringas commented that the City of Chula Vista was trying to rid itself of pole
signs and he would not be willing to approve it. He believed the same kind of standards
for design and signage should be used on this project like what is being done in the
eastern part of the city. This would give the station more character. Enhancing the
canopy and fa~ade to existing building would make the station more attractive.
Chair Alberdi concurred. He believed the proposed design for the canopy was not
compatible to existing building and that the canopy should be better enhanced. He saw
no justification for allowing the height of the pole sign, as it wasn't next to a freeway.
Furthermore he was opposed to pole signs in general; they were not attractive and he
wanted to see monument sign in its place.
Member Calvo commented that from a marketability perspective having a different type of
sign could attract more people and a monument sign would certainly look better.
MSC(Alberdi/ Bringas) Deny DRC-OS-37 project as presented. Motion carried
with Members Magallon and Mestler absent.
MSC (Alberdi/Calvo) (3-0-0-2) Deny DRC-OS-38 as presented. Motion carried
with Members Magallon and Mestler absent.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-6-5-06
e
e
A~c\" VY\Byrf Y
Existing Canopy
Proposed Canopy
Ie
3995 BONITA RD-WILLOW ST., CHULA VISTA CA
A. . ~I-.t... IIIC.
e
e
Existing Sign
Proposed New Sign
~llips E
A. . .......-.... 1_
BONITA RD-WILLOW ST (3995 CHULA VISTA
...
Existing Canopy
Proposed Canopy Sign
~~...- -~_._- -...... - - -..-.. -... ~-.....
~
.At\-C\~\Me---vrt S
Planning
Engineering
Construction Management
207 W. Alameda, Suite no. 203, Burbank, Ca. 91502 Ph. 818-842-3644, Fax. 818-842-3760
June 15,2006
To: City of Chula Vista
Department of city planning
Attn: Ms. Lynette Lopez
Re: ConocoPhilips 76 station
3995 Bonita Rd.,
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
DRC-05-38
Appeal of the Design review board's decision to the planning commission
Dear Ms. Lopez,
Per our conversation, we respectfully appeal Design Review Board's decision denying
our request for installation of a new pole sign and image upgrade of the existing fueling
canopy at the subject site.
Our proposed design would enhance the aesthetic value of the subject site. Our current
proposal is substantially different than the first proposal. We have eliminated any work
on the existing building at the request of the board members. Our proposed pole sign is
much smaller than the original proposal. Also since code allows a pole sign for
commercial properties, denial of our proposed signage deprives our operator from being
able to compete with their competition and reduced signage will have substantial
economical impact on the operation of the site.
We look forward to appearing before the commission and presenting our case.
Sincerely,
~({j~
Ahmad Ghaderi
To
-..------
--.-
--- -- ...--
I . d
09LE2vBBIB
~u~.JaaU~~U3 ~ 1:1
dLO:LO 90 91 un['
Jun 16 06 07:07p
~
A R Engineering
8188423760
p.:.2
- ---.- ....- . -------
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date Received ~4-/' ~-/o~
Fee Paid ~=<o40. oz.;;-
Receipt No.
Case No: ,f)ALr OS=c.3 ~
APPEAL FORM
AppeaJ. from the decision of: _Zoning _Planning ~iqn Review
Administrator Commission Committe~
Name of ,/
Appellant: A.4-o tf:A..k7'/A.J~~RJ./UL.7
Phon~ i}f J~} f)~"z -<34 --y.y
Home Address
Business Address 0<.07 ?V. /J-LA-HE6A ~?{3, 6 tAtet3/f/I/K. I C/1 -?'/w-OcZ.
Project
Address <..3'7'"'7','::;- 6CJA..J/ rA, ~C}A.-JJ rA
Description -<..-J ~<;?~ 1Z~
(Example zone change, variance,
design review, ete)
Project
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are
appealing. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
~~ ~~,{,/o' <~
Signat eJ.lant ate
----------------------
--------------------------- -~------------------------
Do not Write In this Space
The above matter has been scheduled for public heari.ng before the:
---- Planning Commission
City Council
on
;t
Planning Commission Secretary
City Clerk
Rev. 6/9 6
M:\hoae\plann1ng\.o\appeal.rev
Jun 16 06 07:07p
A R Engineering
8188423760
p.3
Uti/J4/Uti lO:l~ FAA
l;. V. t'LANN INli 6. UU 1 1..1) INli
I{g UU.)
THE aTY OF <::Hl1IJ\. VIttA DISCLOSURE ~A'TEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure or certain OWDer.>hip or financial int~es(S, payments, or campaign
contributions, OD all matters which will require discretioDaIy action on the pare of tbe City Council. Planning Commission. and
all other offic:i.aJ boaies. The foUowing iDfoJ1Xlation must be disclosed:
1. List tbe names or aU pelSOns haviDg a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or tb~
~ntraa. e.g., owner. applicant, contractor, subcontractor, materia] supplic:r.
L!..oA-Jo~ cJ :P #1 ~L/ ,,0....::::,
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, USt tbe names of aU individuals owning
more than 10% of the: shares in tbe oorporation or owoing any partnership interest in the pannership.
/C~/ A
3. If .any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is DaD-profit organization or a trust., list the names of any person
serving as director of tbe DOn-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trusL
A.J/4-
~
4.
Have YQU had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any m~beryrrbe City staff, Boards, Commission.s,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months'? Yes_ No-k:::'1f yes. please indicate person(s): _
5.
Ple3Se identity each and cveIy person, including any agents, employees, consultants. or iDdependent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
/I- ~ GA.J6/...{/6-c.A?/A.Jc~
6.
Have you aDd/or your officers or agents, in the aggregat~nUibuted more than $1.000 to a Councilmember in tbe
CUrrent or preceding eteaioQ period? Yes_ No~Ifyes, state which Couoci1member(s):
· · · (NOTE:
Attach additional paJ:C$ as Dccessmy) · .. ..
~-r~~~
Signature of coDtractor/applicant
Date:
0(" //,-;- ~t?
/ ...
~
A- H /-f /I.A (' -r H A JJe:-R-!
Print or type name of conrraaor/applicam
.. ~is tkfUu:d= 'A~' indM4=J},finn, co-parrzu=hip,jobu ~ ~ =cW t:lu.b,fnzu:nUI/ ~ caporrzzion, CSlDJ<; DtLJ1, n:=i"<'T, 3yndiCQ~
this aruf 121')' olha COUIIJ)~ d/)' Dnd co.."",., cu]. mwuc:ipaliry, disrri'cl, or oUu:r poIiliC4! subdivisiDn, or 4ZI1)' (1du:r group or combinmion ~ III a wUl.'
RESOLUTION DRC-05-37
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DRC-05-37 TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE DENYING A NEW 30-FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN
AND CANOPY FASCIA DESIGN AND SIGNAGE FOR A SERVICE
ST A nON LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF "L" STREET
AND BROADWAY-APPLICANT: CONOCO PHILLIPS.
WHEREAS, the property is located at 898 Broadway ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on January 14, 2005 by A & S Engineering on
behalf of Conoco Phillips ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the application requested a new 35 foot high pole sign and installation of
new building and canopy fascia design with color and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee at their regular meeting held on March 7,
2005 evaluated the project and voted 4..,0-0-0 to recommend consideration of a monument sign
and re-design of the fascia color and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reheard the project on June 5, 2006 and still
had concerns with the pole sign and canopy design and therefore voted 3-0-0-2 to deny the
application; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2006 the applicant, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
19.14.583, appealed the decision of the Design Review Committee to the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 11
categorical exemption (accessory structures) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA
guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Department Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the appeal and notice of the 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 July 12,
2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and the hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony present at the public
hearing with respect to the appeal application, the Planning Commission voted
0-0-0-0 to affirm the decision of the Design Review Committee:
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
affirm the Design Review Committee decision denying DRC-05-37 based upon the following
findings:
Finding of Fact #1:
That the proposed project meets (or fails to meet) the requirements of Chula Vista
Municipal Code Chapter 19.14.
The proposed project does meet the requirements of Chapter 19.14. On June 15,2006 the
applicant filed with the Planning Department an appeal , in writing, from the decision of the
Design Review Committee to the Planning Commission.
Finding of Fact #2:
The meets or fails to meet the provisions of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
The project is not consistent with the City Of Chula Vista Design Manual. The proposed signage
is not compatible in character with the existing building and overall site. As proposed, the
canopies will no longer imitate the architecture of the existing service station building. In
addition, the proposed orange banding and flat roofed canopies will dominate the site and the
surrounding area in scale.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of July, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Bryan Felber, Chair
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 10
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: DRC-05-38; Consideration of an application for a new 30
foot high pole sign and canopy fascia design with signage for a service station
located at the corner of Willow and Bonita Road- Applicant: Conoco Phillips
Conoco Phillips, the parent company of Union 76 Service Stations, has commenced an effort to
modernize existing service stations identification signs and is requesting approval of a new 30-foot
freestanding sign. The modernization program also includes a new canopy design and signage.
The Design Review Committee denied the request by a 3-0-0-2 vote. The applicant has chosen
appeal the decision pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.583, which allows for the
applicant to file an appeal of the decision of the Design Review Committee to the Planning
Commission within 10 working days after the decision was rendered.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 11
categorical exemption (accessory structures) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the June 5, 2006 decision of the Design Review Committee
denying DRC-05-37.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The subject property is a 27,007 square foot corner lot that consists of a service station building and
two gas canopy islands. The project site is located on the northwest corner of Bonita Road and
Willow Road. (Attachment 1) The parcel is zoned CC, Central Commercial with a design control
district designator (D). The general plan designation is Retail Commercial (CR).
Adjacent zoning and land uses include:
Zoning
General Plan
Land Use
Northeast:
North:
Southeast:
Southwest:
Central Commercial
Central Commercial
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
County Jurisdiction
County Jurisdiction
Jack-in the-Box
Kaiser Permanente
Good Shepherd Church
Bonita Store Restaurant
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
Background
Municipal Code Section 19.56.020 states that site plan and architectural review shall apply to all uses
within designated design control districts (D) districts subject to Section(s) 19.14.420 -19.14.480. In
addition, Section 19.14.470 (E) states that the Zoning Administrator shall review the size, location,
design, color, number, lighting and materials of all signs and advertising structures within the design
control districts. Although the Zoning Administrator could have made a decision on this item, staff
decided that the Design Review Committee should review the applicant's proposal because of
previous discussions by the Design Review Committee on the appropriateness of pole signs and
design manual policies that discourage pole signs and require compatibility of character and harmony
of signage within the site and with the surrounding area.
The Design Review Committee first heard this item on March 7, 2005. At that time the Design
Review Committee was concerned with the height of the pole sign as well as the appropriateness of
the width and color of the redesign. (Attachment 2) At that time, the Design Review Committee
voted 4-0-0-1 to continue the project, directing the applicant to address the following design issues:
1. Provide a visual presentation of 76 Gas Station sites that have already implemented the
proposed sign program.
2. Minimize the width and color of the orange banding to be more aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with the existing conditions of the surrounding area.
3. Reduce the height of the pole sign and strongly consider a monument sign design in lieu of
what was proposed.
The applicant resubmitted their application for Design Review Committee consideration in May
2006. On June 5, 2006, the Design Review Committee re-heard the project. As requested by the
DRC: the applicant provided visual documentation (in the form of photographs) ofa 76 Gas Station
that had recently installed the proposed 76 Gas Station sign program. However, the applicant chose
not to re-design the freestanding sign or the width and color of the proposed canopy banding.
Rather, the applicant agreed to reduce the pole sign to 30-feet but not add the orange banding to the
service station building. Staff supported the new proposal with the stipulation that:
1. The pole sign be lowered to a height consistent with the height of the canopies and lower
than that of the service station building.
2. The fayade of the building be modified to better complement the architectural design of the
canopIes.
However, the DRC still had concerns and denied the application by a vote of3-0-0-2. (Attachment 3)
3. Analysis
The proposed project consists of: One (1) 30 foot high double column freestanding pole sign, to
replace an existing single pole freestanding sign, one (1) new 36 inch canopy fascia with a new
canopy logo sign, and one (1) new 6 foot high monument price sign. Conoco Phillips would like to
maximize the sign height of it's gas stations. For that reason, they initially proposed a pole sign at
the maximum allowable height of 35 feet. They have since reduced the pole sign to 30 feet.
(Attachment 4)
Page 3 , Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
Despite the recommendation of the Design Review Committee and staff that a lower profile sign
would be more appropriate at this location, Conoco Phillips still would like to place a pole sign at
this location (there is currently only a lower profile price sign at this location). However, they have
agreed to reduce the proposed pole sign from 35 to 30 feet in height.
The Design Review Committee thought that a monument sign, in lieu of a pole sign, would be more
appropriate at this location because:
1. It is not adjacent to a freeway
2. It is along an important thoroughfare of Chula Vista that is saturated with large and
ostentatious signs.
3. A tall freestanding columnar pole sign is not compatible in scale or design with the existing
site.
The width and color of the proposed canopy banding is a standard part of 76 Gas Stations
modernization effort and therefore Conoco Phillips would prefer to not modify the width or color of
the proposed canopies. Conoco has decided to eliminate the 48-inch orange banding that was
proposed to be added to the service station building. As was discussed with the applicant by the
DRC, the addition of the orange banding to the service station was not compatible in nature,
character or design with the roof of the building. It would be more appropriate for this site to
renovate the existing service station building in a manner that is consistent with the design (scale,
proportion, colors and materials) of the proposed canopies.
The Design Review Committee concluded that a pole sign, of any height, and the design of the
canopy are not complementary to the service station building design nor the scale of the surrounding
area. They stated that a monument sign that would be architecturally compatible with the service
station would be more appropriate because the station is not next to a freeway and the rural character
of the area. In addition, the Committee denied the canopy design because the design and colors of
the canopy resulted in advertising rather than an architectural extension of the service station
building.
CONCLUSION:
In an effort to avoid a disorderly display and to enhance the visual quality of signage, the Planning
Commission, the City Council, the Design Manual, all strongly discourage pole signs. The Design
Manual states that signage should be characterized by restraint and designed as supportive elements
to land use.
Staff recognizes that the new signage at this location is due to an overall re-branding and re-imaging
modernization effort by Conoco Phillips (76 Gas Station). However, staff concurs with the concerns
of the Design Review Committee. A lower profile sign that is architecturally compatible with the
main building and constructed with the similar materials would accomplish identification, just as
well as a taller pole sign. A comprehensive sign concept that considers the character of the existing
structures and relates to the surrounding area and site upon which they are placed in terms of
architecture, scale, colors and materials would be preferable. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission affirm the decision of the Design Review Committee denying DRC-05-38.
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/06
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. DRC Minutes March 7, 2005
3. DRC Minutes June 5, 2006
4. Photos
5. Appeal Application and Disclosure
6. Resolution DRC-05-37
J:\Planning.Case File~-05 (FY 04-05)\DRC\Public HearingDRC-05-38\StaffReportIDRC-05-38 Appeal to PC StaffReport.doc
A+tc,( c~ me-1"+- .1.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR PROJECT A & S Engineering
C) APPLICANT:
:~~~1: 3995 Bonita Rd.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale DRC-05-38
AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DESIGN REVIEW
Request: Existing Union 76 station proposing to remove existing
pole sign to install a new 35' h pole sign and new building
facade.
Related cases: NONE
J:\planning\carlos\locators\drc0538.cdr 07.05.06
A-~~~+- ~
.
.
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-4-
March 7. 2005
2. ORC-05-38
76 Gas Station
3995 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, CA ,
Oesiqn review for a new 35-ft.pole siqn to replace 32-ft.
hiqh existinq pole siqn. The proposal also includes the
installation of new buildinq and canopy fascia with color
and s;qnaqe and (1) new 6-ft. tall monument price siqn.
3. DRC-05-37
76 Gas Station
898 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA
Oesjqn Review Committee approval to replace an
existinq 32-ft. hiqh pole siqn with a new 35-ft. hiqh pole
siqn. The proposal also includes the installation of new
buildinq and canopy fascia with color and siqnaqe.
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that Ms. Lopez would be presenting both projects ORC-05-38 and
ORC-05-037 together since they are similar issues at different locations.
Ms. Lynnette Lopez Associate Planner reviewed ORC-05-037 project first. The
representative for the 76 Gas Station is proposing a pole sign at the 898 Broadway, Chula
Vista. This proposal will replace existing 32-ft. pole signs at two separate locations 898
Broadway and 3995 Bonita Road. Staff noted that 898 Broadway is located at the
northwest corner of Broadway and L Street. A competing gas station directly across the
street currently does have a pole sign of equivalent height. In an effort to modernize and
ensure consistency of all their 76 Gas Stations the parent company is proposing one 35-ft.
freestanding pole sign at this location as well as one new 36-inch canopy sign, one new
48-inch building fascia, one new canopy sign, one new wall and one reface to an existing
. sign. Staff noted that based upon previous discussion and policies that discourages pole
signs staff has referred the request for a pole sign to ORC to determine whether or not a
pole sign proposed at the maximum height is appropriate at this location. Ms. Lopez
indicated that there is no proposed change to the existing arrangement of structures on
the site. The proposed pole sign will be in the same location of the existing one. The
proposed signage materials and colors would be consistent with the existing architecture
colors and materials on site. Ms. Lopez discussed ORC-05-038 the pole sign application
for the 3995 Bonita Road location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Committee recommends that the applicant provide a lower profile
sign in lieu of the proposed 35-ft. freestanding pole sign.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
The com!TIittee discussed the design elements of the canopy and asked for clarification.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-3-7 -05
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-5-
March 7, 2005
Mr. Ahmad Gaderhi with A. & S. Engineering (207 W. Alameda, Ste. 203, Burbank, CA)
stated that Conoco Phillips, were the owners of the 76 brand. As of last July, they've
started re-branding and re-imagining their sites throughout the nation. The re-imaging
consists of a new look for the canopy, the building, and also replacing the existing 76 ball
signs with a standard format pole sign. Mr. Gaderhi described the renovations. The
existing roofline would remain the same they would be wrapping the canopy with new
fascia. While the City's municipal code allows for the pole sign, the applicant was aware
that it was at the discretion of the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Gaderhi mentioned the Shell Station on Broadway has an existing pole sign. Gas
stations are a competitive business and the owners have the impression if they go down to
a monument sign it might affect their business adversely. If they retain the pole sign or the
height it would help them to remain competitive. The 35-ft. sign was presented because
the height is allowed in the code. However, they were willing to work with staff and the
committee to come up with a solution that would improve the signage and perhaps modify
the height. Mr. Gaderhi further stated it was also their intent to clean up the entire site and
remove any miscellaneous signs on the premises.
Chair Araiza remarked that it would have been nice to have a visual presentation of the
work that has already been completed.
Mr. Gaderhi responded even though they have been permitted for 50 -70 stations they
have just actually finished a renovation in Pasadena so they did not have any photos to
bring with them.
Member Drake indicated there were no landscape plans included in the package; just a
notation saying that there would be landscaping in the planter area and along the pole
sign. The landscape will be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape
Manual.
Mr. Gaderhi replied that they didn't have a chance to get the landscape plans together, but
they would be happy to resubmit them to the ORC for their review and approval.
Member Drake stated the landscape in the existing bed would need to be replaced
because it is old.
Vice Chair Alberdi said that he personally was against pole signs and would recommend
that the applicant consider a maximum 8-ft. monument sign. Another concern was with
the thickness of the canopy it was too wide and the addition of the orange band. In his
opinion, just adding the logo to the canopy would be more appropriate. Vice Chair Alberdi
recommended that the pole signs be reduced to more of a monument sign scale.
Member Magallon concurred with Vice Chair Alberdi. In her opinion, the pole signs were
too large.
Member Drake noted that the Broadway Street corridor was a prominent one within the
city. She personally believed that a large pole sign was not in the best interest of the city,
and would like to see a scaled down sign. She also felt that it would have been beneficial
to have a visual presentation even if it were a mock up of the signs and canopies to get a
better feel on what was being proposed.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-3-7 -05
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-6-
March 7, 2005
Chair Araiza agreed with his colleagues. He felt that the project should be continued so
that the signs can be redesigned. The height and scale should be reduced. Also if
monument signs were proposed the design should show variation. In addition, the
applicant should bring a presentation of an existing project that was completed so that the
DRC can get a better feel of what is being proposed.
MSC (Araiza/Magallon) (4-0-0-1) to continue DRC-05-38 project to unspecified date
to allow applicant to provide an enhanced visual presentation of proposed canopy
and monument sign. Motion Carried.
MSC (Araiza/Magallon) (4-0-0-1) to continue DRC-05-37 project to unspecified date
to allow applicant to provide an enhanced visual presentation of proposed canopy
and monument sign. Motion carried.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-3-7 -05
t
Atb~ ~-r 7;
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-7-
June 5, 2006
4. DRC-05-37
Conoco Phillips 76 Gas Station
S9S Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Reconsideration of a new 35-ft. pole sian, modification
of the gas island canoDY, and aas Drice sign.
Continued from May 15, 2006
5. DRC-05-38
Conoco Phillips 76 Gas Station
3995 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, CA
Reconsideration of a new 35-ft. pole siqn to replace an
existing 32-ft. pole sian, modification to the aas island
canopy and gas Drice sign.
Continued from May 15, 2006
Staff Presentation:
Ms. Lynnette Lopez, Associate Planner stated Conoco Phillips, the parent company of 76
Gas Station has commenced an effort to modernize and ensure consistency of signage at
each of the 76 Gas Stations in the area by implementing a standardized sign program.
The proposed projects consists of:
898 Broadway location: One new 3D-foot high double column freestanding pole sign
and one new 36-inch canopy fascia with a new canopy logo sign.
3995 Bonita Road location: One 3D-foot high double column freestanding pole sign, to
replace an existing single pole freestanding sign, one new 36-inch canopy fascia with a
new canopy logo sign, and one new 6-foot high monument price sign.
Staff noted that the Design Review Committee had previously reviewed these items on
March 7, 2D05. At that time the DRC was concerned with the height of the pole signs as
well as the appropriateness of the width and color of the proposed canopies.
Ms. Lopez stated the width and color of the proposed canopy banding is a standard part
of the 76 Gas Stations modernization effort and therefore Conoco Phillips would prefer to
not modify the width or color of the proposed canopy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Committee approve DRC-05-37 and DRC-D5-3S and finds that the
canopy fascia is compatible with the existing sites and that a lower profile sign be required
in lieu of the proposed 3D-ft. freestanding pole signs.
ADDlicant Presentation:
Mr. Ahmad Gaderhi, with A. & S. Engineering (207 West Alameda Ave. #203, Burbank,
CA 91502) stated that he agreed with staff's presentation and would hope that they could
come to some agreement that would allow for a pole sign at the S9S Broadway location.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-6-5-06
s --I).
Design Review Committee
Minutes
-s-
June 5, 2006
He noted that a year ago the pole sign that was there fell during the storm and was never
re-erected. Mr. Ghaderi commented that he would be willing to reduce the pole sign to 20-
feet if the ORC was agreeable. He further added that they had elected not to add the
orange banding to the buildings per staff's recommendation.
COMMmEE DISCUSSION:
Chair Alberdi asked for clarification from staff on that recommendation.
Ms. Lopez explained that staff informed the applicant that the orange banding overlaid
onto the existing mansard roof was not compatible with the architectural style and an
exterior fac;ade renovation might be more appropriate.
Chair Alberdi thanked staff for the clarification and agreed with staff's assessment. The
ORC understood the applicant's desire to modernize the gas stations but had some
concerns about the proposals.
Member Bringas commented that the City of Chula Vista was trying to rid itself of pole
signs and he would not be willing to approve it. He believed the same kind of standards
for design and signage should be used on this project like what is being done in the
eastern part of the city. This would give the station more character. Enhancing the
canopy and fa<;ade to existing building would make the station more attractive.
Chair Alberdi concurred. He believed the proposed design for the canopy was not
compatible to existing building and that the canopy should be better enhanced. He saw
no justification for allowing the height of the pole sign, as it wasn't next to a freeway.
Furthermore he was opposed to pole signs in general; they were not attractive and he
wanted to see monument sign in its place.
Member Calvo commented that from a marketability perspective having a different type of
sign could attract more people and a monument sign would certainly look better.
MSC(Alberdil Bringas) Deny DRC-05-37 project as presented. Motion carried
with Members Magallon and Mestler absent.
MSC (Alberdi/Calvo) (3-0-0-2) Deny DRC-OS-38 as presented. Motion carried
with Members Magallon and Mestler absent.
J:\HOME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC\MIN-6-5-06
.Att~~ yY\ex\t"- Y
P,\lW
,
.~~~=~ .~. : ,:.-:-.L.::.....:::::-~"...-- -
Existing Canopy
Proposed Canopy
<<3
BROADWAY-L STREET (898 - CHULA VISTA)
A . S Engineering, Inc.
A,I
~.
i3
.;
. '_._n____
=
1&1
I.
I.
o
l-
I.
.
:>>
D.
~
--
-
z
o
-
(I
>-
I-
o
Z
~
C
at
Ui
G
-
o
A.
"
U
.
o
D-
O
..
A.
,--
i
a
1'4
1'4
I
1'4
'f'4
o
1'4
o
~
~
UI
...
~
~
=
%
U
.
.
..:
ca
:
...
:
II
>
-c
I
~
III
.
.
..
.
D.
-
-
.~
~
A~V\'\e~+- 5
.:!.::~JL
Planning
Engineering
Construction Management
207 W. Alameda, Suite no. 203, Burbank, Ca. 91502 Ph. 818-842-3644, Fax. 818-842-3760
June 15,2006
To: City ofChula Vista
Department of city planning
Attn: Ms. Lynette Lopez
Re: ConocoPhitips 76 station
898 Broadway
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
DRC-05-37
Appeat of the Design review board's decision to the planning commission
Dear Ms. Lopez,
Per our conversation, we respectfully appeal Design Review Board's decision denying
our request for installation of a new pole sign and image upgrade of the existing fueling
canopy at the subject site.
OUf proposed design would enhance the aesthetic value of the subject site. Our current
proposal is substantially different than the first proposal. We have eliminated any work
on the existing building at the request of the board members. OUf proposed pole sign is
much smaller than the original proposal. Also since code allows a pole sign for
commercial properties, denial of OUf proposed signage deprives our operator from being
able to compete with their competition and reduced signage will have substantial
economical impact on the operation of the site.
We look forward to appearing before the commission and presenting our case.
Sincerely.
~<f)~
Alunad Ghaderi
To
1 . d
OSLE2t.8818
~u ~ ..Ji3i3U'~TU3 ~ 1:1
dLS:SO SO SI unr
VUJ~~~VU ~~.~I r~
'"".,. rL..r~nJ"'LnU CIC. DU.&.L.ULnU
~vv~
~
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date Received ok ~ :::,- ~~
Fee Paid ~,..>hvc..tJ. q,.,:r-
Receipt No.
Case No: O.;;l..~-CJS--3 7
APPEAL FORM
AppeaJ. from the decision of: _Zoning _Planning ~siqn Review
Administrator commission Committee
Name of
Appellant:
A ~ ~ c:-AJC7/A.J~~/i?/.AJL-r
Pbon~ ' f( I $5\ fr""-:r e:>2 <34 ~-j/
Home Address
Business Address No.7 W.. ALA/:f6-hA _'02a.3..... i3iA/LJ3/J.A./JC. tJ-/f- cr.lEJt:J02.-
.
proj ect Address 'iS7~ 6;eo/! b. kJA Y; {] 1-1 ULA V f .5 T A
Project Description bE.....5IC--t/u /{tf;,VIGvJ
(Examp~e: zone change, variance, design review, etc)
P~ease USe the space beJ.ow to provide a response to the decision you are
appealing - Attach additiona1 sheets if necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~:f~~
SLgnature 0 Appe~~ant
C>4,/,~-k~
Dat:e
Do not Write In this Space
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
____ Planning Commission
City Council
on
~
Planning Commission Secretary
City Clerk
Rev. 6/96
W:\hoae\p1anning\.o\appeal.rev
2.d
OSLE2vBBtB
~U~"'i3i3U~~U3 ~ 1:::1
dBS:SO SO SI unr
Utl/~"/UtI 1:>:11 1'fi.A
~.v. ~LANNINlj & HUILVINlj
LifJUU03
TIiE CITY OF CHULA VlSTADISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain owner:ship or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, OD aU malters which will require. disc:relionaay action OD the pan of the City Council. Planning Commission. and
aU other officiaJ bodies. The foUawing information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all per.;ons haviDg a financial interest in the propenywhic.h is the subject Df the applicatiDn or tbe
~ntraCt., e.g., owner. applicant., cnntractor, subcnntraC1or. material supplier.
C- O..<.h:F e.c) f? J-/ / u.. / /' ~
2. If any person- identified pursuant to (1) above is a oorporatioD or panbersbip.list the l1ames or an individ1Jals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the oorporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership.
;{')/A-
,
3. If any petson- identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organi2;ation or a trUst, list the names of any person
se.rvi11g as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficial}' or trustor of the trust.
>>//1
'"
4. Have you bad more than S250 worth DC business transacted with any member of the Qty staff, Boards. Commissions,
Committees, and Counci] within the past twelve months? Yes_ No ~, please indicate pe.rson(s): _
5. PJease identify each and every person, including a11Y agents, employees. consuItanrs. or independent contraaors who
you have assigDed to represent you before the City in this matter.
A~ S CVC"'7'/~c-ctIV.A:..Jc/
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate.....s;DntnDuted more than $1.000 (0 a Co11Dci1member in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No~yes, State which CoUDci1member(s):
Dale:
* * · (NOTE:
~ G. /:, '>- ~L.=
/ ."
,
Attach additiona] pages as D~ry) . a .
~L~~~
Signature of contractorlapp (tant
/11/ h-4/j C-t)/ A.lJc-~ I
Prinz or type name of contraaoriappJicant
. ~ is defiJ=i =: "AI'I)' indit-il:Uml, {inn, CD~# jr:nru ~ associmion, sociIZ1 club. Jnzz=1 ~on. corpomrion, t:It4U; ~ rr=:iva, 4YfI4it:Q14
lh.U and any olht!:r CDIU1lJ~ C'ir)' and COUlllZ)., ciLJ.' munidptlliJ)1, dimia, or orJu:r poIiricd subdivisWn, or iZ7I}' odJL:r youp or cornbinaJirm acring as a uniJ.. .
E;"0I
OSLE2v8818
~u~..IaaU~~U3 ~ 1:1
0I85:S0 SO SI unr
A 11ACH-ME~-r (p
RESOLUTION DRC-05-38
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DRC-05-38 TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE DENYING A NEW 30 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN AND
CANOPY FASCIA DESIGN AND SIGNAGE FOR A SERVICE STATION
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF "L" STREET AND
BROADWAY - APPLICANT: CONOCO PHILLIPS
WHEREAS, the property is located at 3995 Bonita Road ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for design review was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on January 14, 2005 by A & S Engineering on
behalf of Conoco Phillips ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the application requested a new 35 foot high pole sign and installation of
new building and canopy fascia design with color and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee at their regular meeting held on March 7,
2005 evaluated the project and voted 4-0-0-0 to recommend consideration of a monument sign
and re-design of the fascia color and signage; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reheard the project on June 5, 2006 and still
had concerns with the pole sign and canopy design and therefore voted 3-0-0-2 to deny the
project; and
WHEREAS, on June 14,2006 the applicant, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.14.583, appealed the decision of the Design Review Committee to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class 11
categorical exemption (accessory structures) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA
guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Department Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the appeal and notice of the 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 July 12,
2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and the hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony present at the public
hearing with respect to the appeal application, the Planning Commission voted 0-0-0-0 to affirm
the decision of the Design Review Committee:
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission affirms the
Design Review Committee decision denying DRC-05-38 based upon the following:
Finding of Fact #1:
That the proposed project meets (or fails to meet) the requirements ofChula Vista
Municipal Code Chapter 19.14.
The proposed proj ect does meet the requirements of Chapter 19.14. On June 15, 2006 the
applicant filed with the Planning Department an appeal, in writing, from the decision of the
Design Review Committee to the Planning Commission.
Finding of Fact #2:
The meets or fails to meet the provisions of the Chula Vista Design Manual.
The project is not consistent with the City Of Chula Vista Design Manual. The proposed signage
is not compatible in character with the existing building and overall site. As proposed, the
canopies will no longer imitate the architecture of the existing service station building. In
addition, the proposed orange banding and flat roofed canopies will dominate the site and the
surrounding area in scale.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 26th day of July, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Bryan Felber, Chair