HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1979/09/12 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 12, 1979 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES for the meeting of August 22, 1979
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Request for one year extension of tentative subdivision map for
Chula Vista ~oods, PCS-77-5
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-80-3 - Request for reduction of front setback
from 10 feet to 5 feet for construction of two story office
building on west side of Broadway between "I" and Halsey
Streets - J & Z Enterprises
3. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-79-8 (Supplement to Master EIR-78-2) for development
of 419 acres in Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area of
E1 Rancho del Rey
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revocation of conditional use permit
PCC-78-7 issued to Gary Iverson for truck repair facility
at 1179 Frontage Road
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-80-1 - Request for exemption from "west
to east development policy" of E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan to permit development of 2.6 acre parcel on the north
side to East H Street, approximately 1600 feet west of Otay
Lakes Road - Chez Bonita
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
To: City Planning Commission
From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission
Meeting of September 12, 1979
1. Request for one sear extension of tentative subdivision map for
Chula Vista Woods, PCS-77-5
A. BACKGROUND
1. In January 1978 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision
map for Chula Vista Woods to divide 20 acres into 54 single family residential
lots and one open space,lot. The proposed development is located 400 feet west
of Brandywine Avenue and 1300 feet south of Telegraph Canyon Road in the R-1-H
zone.
2. Prior to the expiration of the tentative map, a letter was received
from John D. Goddard, agent for J. W. Gardner, Jr. & Associates, who are in the
process of acquiring the property, requesting a one year extension of the map.
B. RECOMMENDATION
There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which affect
the original findings or conditions of approval. ~Therefore, the staff recommends
that a one year extension of the tentative map for Chula Vista Woods be granted.
The tentative map will then expire on July 17, 1980.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12~ 1979 page 2
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-80-3 - ~equest for reduction of front setback
from lO feet to 5 feet for construction of two story~office
building on west side of Broadway between "I" and Halsey
Streets~- J & Z Enterprises
A. BACKGROUND
1. This variance application requests a reduction in the front yard setback
from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a two story office building on the
easterly 60 feet of a 9,382 sq. ft. split zoned (R-1 and C-T) parcel located on
the west side of the 600 block of Broadway between "I" and Halsen Streets (see
locator exhibit).
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3c exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" Qf this report, adopt a motio~
to approve the request, PCV-80-3, for a reduction i~ the front yard setback
from 10 feet to 5 feet.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a level, rectangular, through lot, lying between
East Manor Drive and Broadway. The lot, with an average lot depth of 139 feet,
has 85 feet of frontage along Broadway and 50 feet ~long East Manor Drive. The
property is split zoned wit~ the easterly 60 feet zoned C-T and the remainder
of the lot zoned R-1. The ~ portion of the lot is developed with a single
f~mily dwelling and a deta~ie~ garage. The garag~ is located on the zone
boundary line, as is a 5 foQt'high block wall. The house is located approxi-
mately l0 feet from the boundary line. The C-T ~ortion of the property contains
approximatel~ 4,640 sq. ft. and is vacant.
2. ~djacent zoning and land uses.
All of the properties o~ the west side of the 600 block of Broadway, except
the corner lots, are through lots which also have frontage on East Manor Drive.
The lots are split zoned with the easterly 60~fee~ zoned C-T and the westerly
portion zoned R-1. All of the lots are developed' with single family dwellings
facing East Manor Drive. The C-T portion of the~l~t to the north of the subject
property is developed with a retail commercial strQcture that is located on the
zone boundary line and is approximately 40 feet from Broadway. The property to
the south is developed with a commercial auto repair facility located on the
front property line.
3. Proposed development.
The applicant proposes to construct a two story commercial structure on the
south side of the property and provide eight offstreet parking spaces, three of
which will be located underneath a portion of the second story. The building
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 3
will contain 648 sq. ft. of floor space, 195 sq. ft. of which will be storags,
at the first floor level and 1,350 sq. ft. at the second floor level. There will
be a stairway provided in the front and rear of the building. The building will
be located on the south property line and 5 feet from the front property line.
Landscapinq is provided in front of the parking and the building. Tree wells are
provided within the parking area.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The depth of the commercial zoning along this stretch of Broadway continues
to cause problems with the development or redevelopment of properties in accord-
ance with the requirements of the city code. The problems are compounded by the
fact that the properties are split zoned. Recent developments have had to request
some form of relief from the code requirements through the variance procedure or
precise plan procedure.
2. The front setback for Broadway is established at 10 feet by the require-
ments of the C-T zone rather than the Building Line Map. A genuine hardship
exists in the development of the property because of the shallow depth of the
C-T zone. The required lO foot setback reduces the usable area of property
which is already minimal at best. As indicated earlier in this report, the
structure to the south enjoys a zero setback and the structure to the north ha~
a 40 foot setback. The 5 foot setback will allOw for some landscaping in front
of the building. The proposed plan places the building on the south side of the
property, leaving the northerly portion open. For this reason, the structure to
the north will still enjoy adequate visibility. The structure to the south
would not be affected by the approval of this request.
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and~not created by any act of
the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing
the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the
zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss~of
prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifyin~ a
oariance. Further, a previous variance can never ~ve set a precedent, for each
case must be considered only on its individual merits.
The shallow depth of the commercial zone (60') creates a hardship in working
out a reasonable site plan in this area even with no building setback. The
lO' setback required in the C-T zone represents a disproportionate portion
of the depth of the zone.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The desired depth of commercially zoned property is at least 150 feet. Any
depth less than that places considerable restraints on the development of the
property. Other properties in the immediate vicinity enjoy a zero setback.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 4
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property, and will not materially i~)air the purposes of this c}~pter
or the public interest, i
The structure will be located on the south side of the site adjacent to a
commercial structure which has a zero setback. The portion of the site
adjacent to the north property line will be devoted to parking so that the
view of the building on the property to the north will not be blocked to
southbound traffic on Broadway. Therefore, the granting of this request will
not adversely affect adjoining properties.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the genera~
plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan recognizes the need of adequate depth of commercially zoned
property.
~ ~ LOC R
~ REDUCE,
,~ ~WAY ~T~N I
....... ~ ~
TIRES
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September !2, 1979 page 5
3. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-79-8 (Supplement to Master EIR-78-2) for development
of 419 acres in Rice Canyon Sectional Plannin9 Area of
E1 Rancho del Rey as Hidden Vista Village
A. BACKGROUND
This EIR was issued for public and ~gency review by the Environmental Review
Committee on August 9, 1979. It is intended that this document be supplemental
to the EIR prepared on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The specific area
of focus is the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area located east of 1-805,
northerly of the Halecrest area and south of Lynwood Hills. It is the initial
phase of development along East "H" Street which is in compliance with the west
to east development sequence specified in the Specific Plan.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing and take testimony relevant to the adequacy of the draft
EIR. Depending on the volume of comment received on the document during the
public hearing, consideration of the final EIR should be set for either September 26
or October lO, 1979. At the conclusion of the hearing staff will make a specific
recommendation as to the appropriate date.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 419 acre property would be subdivided into 348 lots. The residential and
commercial buildings would be constructed for sale or lease as part of the proposed
project. Construction for the entire project would be expected to occur over a
two to five year period. Development of the property would necessitate the eventual
construction of a new fire station, elementary school, junior high school, and 7.3
acres of developed park. The developer would provide for park and recreation through
a combination of dedication of improved park land and payment of fees.
A 188,000 square foot commercial center, including restaurants, retail stores, offices,
a bank, a theater, adjacent auto park and park-and-ride facilities are planned for
the southwest side of the property along East "H" Street. A recreation club and
spa are planned in the multi-family units south of East "H" Street. A park site,
elementary school site, junior high school site, fire station site, and designated
open space areas are also proposed as part of the project.
The residential area would encompass 334 single family homes with lots ranging
from 6,000-18,000 square feet, 224 apartments, 638 condominiums.
Grading would required balanced cut-and-fill of four and one-half million cubic
yards, including schools and park sites, or three and one-half million cubic yards
not including schools and park sites. The grading of the entire property is
scheduled to occur in a single phase to allow balance of operation.
The Rice Canyon SPA proposes 125 acres of open space in the southeast and south-
west quadrants of the project site. Areas in the northeast which are not included
in the park or school si~tes would eventually become open space. The open space
areas are of steep terrain and generally coincide with open space as designated
by the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 6
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Land Form.
Land form modificatioQ is expected to b~ a sigpificant impact which cannot
be fully mitigated. Reduction of the impact to an insignificant level would
involve dramatic reduction in the scope of development and, therefore, is not
considered feasible.
One of the most significant results of the extensive, as well as simultaneous,
land for modification would be the erosion potential created. Adequate landscaping
and runoff control would be important in reducing erosion.
2. Geology/Soils.
Seismic hazard and its potential impact on the proposed project are considered
to be potentially significant, although the likelihood of a major earthquake
impacting structures built on or near traces of those faults attributable to the
La Nacion and Sweetwater Fault zones onsite, is considered small. Several
investigations have shown that offset or separation of Holocene age materials
(10,000 years +) onsite, and in the nearby areas, has not occurred. The most
recent movement on the La Nacion and Sweetwater Faults is thought to have occurred
during Pleistocene times (1.5-2 million years ago) and thus the fault zone is
thought to be only potentially active. As discussed in the EIR, proper planning,
design and construction can, for the most part, alleviate the potential for seismic
damage. As in virtually all portions of Southern California, the Rice Canyon SPA
property is subject to seismic impacts. In spite of the location of the site
astride the La Nacion and Sweetwater Fault systems, economically viable engineering
subdivision design and construction techniques are available to reduce seismic
risk to an acceptable level.
As the actual area of expansive materials on the property is small, the
significance of shrink-swell is, likewise, small. Mitigation measures can
readily prevent foundation damage due to expansive soil materials.
The significance of compressible materials impacts onsite is somewhat higher.
Mitigation measures would have to be employed to properly prepare the compressible
areas for construction of permanent structures.
3. Drainage.
The natural Rice Canyon drainage has been blocked by the 1-805/~'H'' Street
interchange and water is conveyed under the interchange through pipes with a
carrying capacity of 1600 cubic feet per second (cfs). There is a discrepancy
between this capacity and the "ultimate" 50 year flood of about 2100 cfs predicted
by the Fogg report of 1964.
Erosion of the Otay and San Diego formations, which form the sides of the canyon,
has been rapid where runoff from buildings and paved surfaces has been allowed to
run down the unprotected canyon sides. Erosion of the alluvium along the bottom
of Rice Canyon has also been rapid, particularly during the recent wet years of
1977-78 and 1978-79.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 7
The downstream culverts have functioned adequately since their construction,
although a considerable amount of sediment was deposited downstream from the
culvert outlet during the wet winters of 1977-78 and'1978-79. This sediment has
choked the culvert beneath Bonita Road and increases the likelihood of flooding
on that road.
Specific engineering and design for drainage structures for handling storm
runoff and floodwaters have as yet not been proposed. Initial discussions with
the project engineer indicate that two basic alternative drainage structures
along Rice Canyon through the project are being considered. Sedimentation is the
most serious problem which faces the design of this structure, as a high volume
of sediment is expected to be carried in surface runoff. In view of the sedimenta-
tion potential, an open channel, probably lined with concrete, appears to be the
most practical solution because it can easily be cleaned out periodically as
sediment accumulates. Such a channel could also include a series of sediment
traps specifically designed to localize sedimentation.
The alternative to an open channel is an enclosed culvert, which would run
beneath the multi-family and commercial units. This option could be more appealing
from an aesthetic and land use intensity perspective. Underground culverts, however,
do have a strong disadvantage from a maintenance standpoint. Sediment removal
would be difficult unless sedimentation basins were included which were designed
for easy removal of sediment.
The project drainage and facilities must be designed to interface with the
culvert at the 1-805/l'H"~Street interchanges to prevent sediment from being
deposited over the intake of this existing culvert. A retention basin at the
eastern boundary of the project could decrease the rate of runoff as well as trap
sediments before they enter the project site.
Drainage on and off the project site is a potentially significant impact which
can be mitigated ~hro~gh,a carefully planned system of drainage control and trans-
port system. ~
4. Archaeology.
Archaeological resources on the property appear to be of only limited
significance. The resources found on the property are mostly shell scatters, which
are geographically separated fr~m each other. No artifacts were found in the
vicinity of the shell scatters and no subsurface deposits (midden) appear to be
associated with any of these scatters.
Preservation of these sites appears incompatible with the proposed develop-
ment and therefore a more indepth subsurface testing program could be warranted
to determine the significance of the resources present. A salvage or recovery
program could be required in the event that sufficient significance appears to be
related to the various archaeological resources present on the property. This
testing/salvage program could include: collection and mapping of surface arti-
facts, posthole series, test pit excavation and analysis and cataloging of
recovered information.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page
5. Biology.
The density allowed under the E1 Rancho del Rey development plan and the
locations specified for development cannot occur without the complete destruction
of the biologic habitat of that area. Internal access would be along Rice Canyon
and its tributaries, which would preclude their usefulness as a wildlife habitat.
Little mitigation is available for impacts within the area to be developed.
Mitigation for the graded areas, which is not a part of the project design,
would include fencing and preserving the small Vernal Pool area near the school
sites and transplanting. The transplanting of sensitive plant species in the
path of grading could allow their continued existence within the project boundaries.
However, transplantation is a difficult process. Certainty of success cannot be
assured and few case histories are available for the plants, which would be trans-
planted.
· Although no specific sensitive habitats exist, the biological resource
present on the property should be considered important. The Rice Canyon SPA
would would have a significant impact on that biological resource.
6. Traffic. I ~
The 419 acre development of Rice Canyon SPA would generate about 35,000
weekday daily vehicular trips after full occupancy. The 1985 traffic volume
estimates, with and without the extension of East "H" Street easterly of the
project site, are graphically represented in Figures 13 and 14 of the EIR.
Under the condition proposed without the extension of East "H" Street and
Ridgeback Road easterly, the projected 1985 traffic volumes on the project circu-
lation system would increase from zero at the eastern boundary of the tract to
28,650 on "H" Street just east of the 1-805 interchange. Under the second condi-
tion, with the extension of East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road easterly, the
projected 1985 traffic volumes would increase to 3,300 ADT on Ridgeback Road and
to 8,900 ADT on East "H" Street at the easterly boundary of the tract and to about
37,000 on East "H" Street just east of 1-805 interchange.
In 1995, assuming the E1 Rancho del Rey Development plan area would develop
as planned by the City, the accumulated traffic volumes on the eastern boundary of
the Rice Canyon SPA are projected to be about 10,300 on Ridgeback Road and 26,400
on East "H" Street. With the addition of the traffic generated by the Rice Canyon
SPA (35,000), the projected traffic volumes on East "H" Street east of 1-805
interchange would be about 63,000 daily on an average weekday.
The impacts resulting from development of the Rice Canyon SPA are not
expected to be significant. However, as the remaining Sectional Planning Areas
within E1 Rancho del Rey are developed, additional trips would occur along Ridge-
back Road, East "H" Street and, possibly "Street K". Future traffic along
East "H" Street within the Rice Canyon SPA as it is presently designed, would be
expected to approach and possibly exceed design capacity. This impact is not a
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 9
direct cause and effect relationship inherent in the Rice Canyon SPA but is rather
a long term cumulative impact on the project which would be generated offsite.
Mitigation, specifically widening of rights-of-way, have been suggested to mitigate
this expected long term impact. The intent is to allow East "H" Street, within
the project, to be constructed to specifications which would provide for future
traffic.
7. Noise.
Noise levels within the project site would be completely dominated by traffic
noise generated on and offsite and represents a major long term noise source.
Other noise sources, such as stationary sources and population, would not have much
effect on the area. Construction noise would have a significant short term impact
on the adjacent property, especially residential areas along Vista Nacion Drive,
Vista Coronado Drive and the northern extension of Floyd Avenue.
The Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Chula Vista establishes
65 dBA as the highest noise level along the roadways which is considered acceptable.
By 1995, segments of East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road crossing the project site
would exceed the 65 dBA limit; East "H" Street is expected to exceed 70 dBA.
An examination of the noise contour maps indicates that it would be possible
to locate all dwelling units outside the area which would exceed 65 dBA. Therefore,
the adverse impact of residences within the Rice Canyon SPA is potentially insig-
nificant. These contour maps also show that the commercial center would be sub-
jected to levels which exceed 65 dBA; however, commercial land uses are not
addressed by the Noise Element with regard to restrictions as a noise receptor.
Commercial areas are only reviewed as noise generators. No significant noise
generation would be produced by the retail/office development proposed in the
Rice Canyon SPA.
8. Air quality.
Completion of the Rice Canyon SPA would have an incremental effect on the
local and regional air quality. In and of itself, the project would not signifi-
cantly impact air quality. It would, however, increase emissions, particularly
from traffic, in the Chula Vista and the San Diego air sheds.
Mitigation available for limiting the impact of the project on air quality
is limited. The Rice Canyon SPA does include features which would minimize its
effect on air quality, including the park-and-ride lot, bike and pedestrian
paths and proximity of schools, recreation and shopping facilities for residents.
9. Aesthetics..
Development of the Rice Canyon SPA would have a significant effect on the
aesthetics of the project site. A major land use change would take place. Manufac-
tured cut-and-fill banks would replace natural contours. Buildings and street
improvements would destroy much of the existing vegetation. The impact of develop-
ment on the aesthetic resource~ can be partially mitigated through contour grading
and landscaping.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page l0
10. Schools.
Local school districts are already operating above their respective design
capacities. Implementation of the Rice Canyon ~PA~could generate a relatively
large number of students depending on project phasing. This would have a
significant impact on local school facilities and quality of education. Construc-
tion of interim facilities would be necessary to a~commodate students. Ultimately,
new school buildings may be required, especially in the case of elementary grades.
These impacts would be o~fset by contribution of fees, dedication of improved school
sites, Or some combination of the two.
The construction of mew school facilities required by the project would
represent a significant fiscal impact upon the community.
ll. Liquid waste+
The carrying capacity of the local sewer system as planned is adequate to serve
the Rice Canyon SPA. The Metro System though contractually liable to treat the
sewage generated, is physically unable to adequately do so until new facilities are
constructed.
E. COIIMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
1. Environmental Control Commission.
The Environmental Control Commission found that the EIR met the CEQA guidelines
and listed several comments that were discussed at their meeting of August 20,
1979. (Comments attached.)
2. Letters of comment from the Sweetwater Union High School District, the
Otay Municipal Wa~er DistriEt, and Mr. Donald R. Atkinson are attached for
your information.
3. A response to these letters, any other letters received, and testimony
at the publi~ heari)!g willlbe provided in the final EIR.
F. CEQA FINDINGS.
The Californai Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that projects which
will result in significant environmental impacts which can feasibly be mitigated
shall only be approved if the necessary mitigation is made a condition of approval.
If it is infeasible to mitigate a significant impact the project can only be
approved if there are overriding conditions which warrant approval in light of the
environmental impacts.
August 23, 1979
TO: Planning Commission '
FROM: John A. Macevicz, Chairman/Environmental Control Co -
SUBJECT: EIR-79-8 - Rice Canyon //
This environmental impact report meets CEQA guidelines. The below-listed comments
are expressed by the ECC:
(1) Fault traces. Even though it has been 2 million years since there has been
6ovement, let's be safe rather than sorry.
(2) Grading. Major adverse effect on this property. Cuts and fills are out of
proportion, changing the land form to the extreme. Aesthetics, erosion and
siltation problems will be caused by the grading of the entire area.
(3) Cumulative air quality. Impacts will be caused by the project.
(4) Drainage problems. Present natural drainage system to 1-805 cannot take care of
present runnoff and silting action. Main system proposed would be undergrou:nd
in pipes which would become plugged causing backup and much property damag~,
not to mention sanitary problems.
The Chairman remarked that this total project is poorly designed and he hopes that the
land form can be maintained as is; or, as closely~as possible to the natural terrain.*
JAM:av
WRITTEN COMMENTS DRAFTED BY JOHN MACEVICZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL COMMISSION, AND DISCUSSED, AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE ECC AT THEIR
REGULAR MEETING HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 197g, I~Y THE FOLLOWING VOTE~ TO-WIT:
AYES: Commissioners Macevicz, Donovan, Iversen, Taylor, Hodson and
Hernandez.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Abstain: None.
ATTEST: , Secretary
*CHAIR~!AN SUGGESTED "LET'S REVIVE OUR HILLSIDE ORDINANCE!"
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011
7].4 42§-170o
DIVISION OF BUSINESS SERVICES
August 30, 1979
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
The data relative to the Sweetwater Union High School District which is contained
in the draft EIR on the Rice Canyon SPA (Hidden Vista Village) basically presents
our view of current circt~nstances. The projections seem valid at this time.
However, as you know, the board of trustees of our district has not as yet
specifically detemined the total need for, nor the location of, specific junior
or senior high school sites in the E1 Rancho del Rey area. Funding methods and
a specific knowledge of site and facility needs have yet to be determined in a
manner that would allow a definite decision.
Sincerely,
Phi
Director of Facilities and Budgets
PDJ:cih
10595 JAMACHA SOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92078
TELEPHONE: 462~2222, AREA CODE 714
August 16, 1979
City of Chula Vista
Department of Planning
Post Office Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
Attn: Mr. Douglas D. Reed
Subj: Rice Canyon Specific Plan EIR
Dear Mr. Reed:
I have reviewed the portions of the EIR for the
Rice Canyon project pertaining to water supply.
I can see no additions or corrections to the
text as submitted except that the size of the
transmission main required has been changed
to 18 inches.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
R. E. Barber, Jr.
Chief Engineer
dm
21 ' ' ~t 1979
~T. Dou:~las D. ~¢id
i]nvironmental Review Coordinator ~ ~;: ii~i 7~
Chula Vista Civic Center ice Cnnyon
P.O. Dox 1087
Ct~ula Vista, CE 92012
Dear ilr. Peid:
Hy interest in the report and tlc },lan st6~s i!'o~ livenI nearby ,~: c
enjoying excursions in and aro~d the canyon. The re'. rt s~cns ado .uate
l.ut I have one quarrel with the gradin{ plan.
There exists now a high }mol! on the ridge with a panoramic view
pro~mbly superior to that from Deadn~mn's Hill, to the east. {t~ the plan,
it appears to be on the Junior High School site, opposite the intersectior
of Street R with Ridgeback Road, and rather severe Mrading is p!am~ed
there which would permanent].y reduce the view possi[le ~o~.
Though this is just a matter of esthetics, it se,.~ns a shame to
so degrade such a magnificent view. HoFefully, ti~e siting of residences
on Street R will exploit wh~t view is left. Th.~mk yo~ for this opportun-
ity to give input.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page ll
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of revocation of conditional use permit
PCC-78-7 issued to Gar~ Iverson for truck repair facility
at 1179 Frontage Road
A. BACKGROUND
1. In October, 1977 the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit
(PCC-78-7) and approved a precise plan (PCM-78-7) for a truck repair facility
located at 1179 Frontage Road (original address 1180 Walnut Avenue) in the I-L-P
zone. Approval of the conditional use permit and precise plan was predicated upon
the fulfillment of certain conditions, which specified that:
a. No truck or truck trailers were to be parked or stored on the private
road easement or on the public street.
b. All work was to be conducted within the building or within the area
to be fenced.
c. All gates were to be kept closed during hours of operation except as
necessary to allow vehicular ingress and egress.
d. All areas proposed for parking, storage, repair and access were to
be paved with 2" of asphalt concrete over 4" of aggregate base with
seal coat.
e. A solid 8 foot high fence or wall was to be provided around the area.
f. A solid 6 foot high fence or wall was to be provided on the northerly
property line adjacent to the five customer parking spaces.
g. Wheel stops were to be provided.
h. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all areas to be landscaped was
to be submitted for approval by the City Landscape Architect.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to revoke the conditional use permit, PCC-78-7, for a 24 hour truck
repair facility at 1179 Frontage Road and inform the applicant to cease and desist
the operation and clean the site to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director
by December 12, 1979.
C. DISCUSSION
1. At the time of approval of the conditional use permit, the applicant had
been in operation for approximately 10 months, having been issued a zoning permit
license as a continuing nonconforming use, and on the basis that there would be
no outside work. When it became apparent that work was being conducted outside
the building, the applicant was informed that a conditional use permit and precise
plan would have to be filed and approved in order to continue the operation. That
approval was granted in October, 1977.
City Planning Commission page 12
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979
2. In July 1978 the staff informed the applicant that a petition for a 1911
Act for the street improvements on Walnut Avenue had been received and construc-
tion was to begin this year. On the basis of this anticipated construction on
Walnut Avenue, staff informed the applicant that the landscaping along Walnut
Avenue could be deferred until after the installation of the street improvements.
As of this date the only work that has taken place on the applicant's site is
partial installation of fencing along the west and northwest property lines.
3. Aside from not completing the required paving, fencing and other physical
improvements, the applicant has been operating in a manner contrary to the
to the conditions of approval. Trucks have been parked or stored on the private
road easement as well as outside of the building and work area. Without the
required fencing and gates the operation is in violation of the condition requiring
keeping the gates closed and screening the work area. On August 7, 1979 the staff
took pictures of the site which will be available at the meeting. On August 6,
1979 the staff met with Mr. Iverson to discuss the violations and the installation
of improvements. Prior to that time the Zoning Enforcement Officer had called on
the applicant on several occasions. These efforts to get Mr. Iverson to comply
with the conditions of approval have not been successful.
D. CONCLUSION
The applicant has been conducting an open-air truck repair operation at least
since October 1977. When the conditional use permit was approved in that month
the applicant continued the operation, making only minimal efforts to comply with
the conditions of approval. The nature of the operation is such that it is
having a blighting influence on adjacent properties, some of which are already
in a deteriorated condition. The I-L-P zone was placed on this property and the
1911 improvement district was formed in an effort to upgrade the area. Continu-
ance of the use in violation of the conditions of approval undermines this
upgrading effort. Efforts by staff to get the applicant to comply with the
conditions of approval have not been successful.
LOCAl'OR
PCM-T8-71
PCC-78-7
CONOrrlONAL USE ~o~~.-~'
ZONE FOR TRUCX ~
V
NORTH
E. EASEMEN'I
LO 'A
I I I I
I !
L~I~
I
i
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 13
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-80-1 - Request for exemption from "west
to east development policy" of E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
to permit development of 2.6 acre parcel on the north side of
East H Street, approximately 900 feet west of Otay Lakes
Road - Chez Bonita
A. BACKGROUND
1. This variance application, filed by Charles R. Lewsader and William P.
Lee, general partners of Chez Bonita, requests exemption from the "west to east
development policy" of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan in order to develop
a 2.6 acre parcel on the north side of East H Street, approximately 900 feet
west of Otay Lakes Road in the P-C zone. The Specific Plan designates a residen-
tial density of ll to 18 dwelling units per acre, which would permit a maximum
of 46 units on the property.
2. An Initial Study, IS-80-11, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on August 18,
1979. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental
effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declara-
tion.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-11 and find that this project
will have no significant environmental impact.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a .
motion to deny the variance request.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning, land use designation, and existing land use:
North P-C Open Space Vacant
South P-C Med. Den. Res. (6-10 DU/acre) Single family dwellings
R-1 Med. Den. Res. Southwestern College
East P-C Commercial Vacant
West P-C Med. Den. Res. (6-10 DU/acre) Vacant
2. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a wedge shaped parcel with 675 feet of frontage along
the north side of East "H" Street. The parcel has a lot depth of 270 feet on the
west side of the property and 84 feet on the east side. The site is relatively
level, having been graded in 1972 when East "H" Street was improved westerly of
Otay Lakes Road. East "H" Street is improved to a point approximately 1400 feet
west of the west boundary of the subject property.
City Planning Con~nissio.n
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 14
3. Variance Application.
The applicant has attempted to substantiate his variance application by the
attachment of various exhibits addressing the required findings to grant approval.
A copy of the variance application and exhibits (A through E) are attached hereto.
D. ANALYSIS
1. Staff has evaluated the position expressed by the applicant in Exhibits
A-E in support of his request for an exemption from the "west to east development
policy." These arguments appear to be based, in part, upon a misunderstanding of
the rationale behind the policy. Throughout the applicant's argument is the theme
that the purpose of the west to east development policy is to see to it that proper-
ties have street improvements and utilities installed prior to development. The
argument states correctly that the subject property already has street improvements
and utilities installed, but incorrectly concludes that the property should there-
fore be allowed to vary from the west to east development policy.
If the presence of street improvements and utilities is sufficient to allow
a waiver of the west to east policy, then properties adjacent to the subject property
on the west would also be entitled to a waiver or variance. Further, those
properties not now having such improvements could qualify for a waiver simply by
installing the improvements. But the key point is that until such time as "H"
Street is continuous between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road, east-west traffic must use
either Bonita Road or Telegraph Canyon Road, and those two thoroughfares cannot
safely carry much more traffic during peak hours. While each parcel on its own
may not contribute greatly to traffic congestion on Bonita Road, Otay Lakes Road
and Telegraph Canyon Road, the cumulative effect from the development of a series
of properties clearly would have an adverse effect. The west to east development
policy is an important element of the Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey and it
was adopted to prevent new developments from further overloading Bonita Road,
Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. Such overloading would inevitably
occur as long as "H" Street is not continuous between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road,
or until Bonita Road, Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road are widened so as
to carry the traffic.
2. The main points presented in the applicant's statement (Exhibits A-E)
along with staff's responses are presented below.
EXHIBIT "A"
1. Applicant's Comment - ~T~e property's unique location and access is
a relevant factor warranting a variance since the lack of street
access and utilities has been the major justification for the west
to east development policy.
Staff Response - The property is not unique. Two ownerships to the
west can make the same argument as East "H" Street is fully improved
along their frontage also. One of these is a 6.3 acre parcel and
the other contains 7.9 acres. Properties further to the west could
make a similar argument by installing street improvements and utilities
and the effect would be to generate more traffic on either Telegraph
Canyon Road or Bonita Road, which the west to east policy seeks to
avoid.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 15
2. Applicant's comment - Their (applicant's) actions (revisions to
preliminary development proposal) were taken and their expenses were
incurred before the west to east development resolution was formally
adopted on August 8, 1978.
Staff Response - Under Section 19.14.190 A of the zoning ordinance,
financial hardship is not justification for the granting of a variance.
The staff could not anticipate, when first reviewing the applicant's
proposal, that a west to east development resolution would be adopted
by the City Council.
EXHIBIT "B"
1. Applicant's comment - The Chez Bonita property already has all of the
required improvements. Development of other property in E1 Rancho
del Rey is apparently not prohibited until '~" Street is completed,
but only until the west to east installment of improvements has reached
the particular parcel.
Staff Response - The west to east policy applies to all properties
within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area. It is not true, as
stated in Exhibit "B",that other properties will be allowed to develop
when street improvements and utilities are installed across their
frontage.
2. Applicant's comment - . . · the west to east policy was ignored when
plans for a 57 lot subdivision, Bonita Haciendas, which is located
west of the subject property, was approved.
Staff response - The Bonita Haciendas subdivision was not subject to
the west to east development policy as it does not lie within the
boundaries of the adopted Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey.
EXHIBIT "C"
1. Applicant's comment - The west to east development policy was intended
to ensure that utility and circulation systems are provided for property
before its development is allowed. The Chez Bonita property
adequate utility and circulation access.
Staff response - The policy is aimed at all properties in the E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area rather than one isolated parcel.
It is conceded that the development of the subject property would not
adversely affect or be harmful to adjacent property. However, the
granting of this request would materially impair the intent of the
policy to guarantee the installation of East "H" Street and not to
overburden the existing streets with traffic.
2. Applicant's comment - . . traffic (from the development) would not
overburden any street. (The con~nent goes on to quote from a traffic
consultant in an Environmental Impact Report for the area.)
Staff response - The City's Traffic Engineer does not concur with the
City Planning Commission page 16
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979
traffic statements made in the draft EIR. Traffic on East "H"
Street now warrants a signal at Otay Lakes Road and any additional
development which generates traffic on Bonita Road, Telegraph Canyon
Road and Otay Lakes Road is undesirable unless it is conditioned upon
the substantial offsite widening of those streets or upon the construc-
tion of "H" Street between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road.
EXHIBIT "D"
Applicant's comment - The granting of the variance will not be contrary
to the objectives of the west to east development resolution .
Staff response - The granting of the variance would be directly contrary
to the west to east policy. Even though the subject parcel is small
and would not generate a large amount of traffic, approval of the
application would open the door to development of properties adjacent
on the west under a similar rationale. Further, under a rationale
established by the approval of this variance, any property on "H"
Street would be allowed to develop if the owner constructed "H" Street
and placed utilities in front of the property. This would completely
undermine the intent of the policy.
EXHIBIT "E"
1. Applicant's comment - . . Th~ city . . . impliedly represented that
plans could be submitted for final c(oproval within the following
months.
Staff response - Mr. Lee's letter of February 16, 1978 makes no
commitment as to final approval. The first paragraph of the letter
informs the applicant's representative that plans will not be accepted
for consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council until
after the moratorium is lifted.
Council direction during the moratorium was for staff to work with
applicants even though the E1 Rancho del Rey plan was still under
preparation. Council acknowledged that this involved some risk by
an applicant inasmuch as the permitted land use on a property could
not be determined until the Specific Plan was formally adopted,
however, Council wished to minimize the impact of the moratorium by
making staff time available if an applicant wished to proceed at his
own risk in preparing plans before the Specific Plan had been adopted.
This cannot now be used as a basis for granting an exception to the
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan.
2. Applicant's comment (paraphrased) - Re legal doctrine of estoppel
prevents the City from applying the west to east development policy
to the subject property.
Staff response - Estoppel applies only to cases where a building
permit has been issued and the applicant has made substantial expendi-
tures in reliance upon the permit. No building permit was issued in
this case and, indeed, no public hearings were held by the Planning
Commission and City Council and no approvals were given as required
by the P-C regulations.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1979 page 17
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of
the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in d¢~eloping
the property for t~e needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the
zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of
prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifuing a
variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each
case must be cansidered only on its individual merits.
Pursuant to Section 19.14.190 A of the zoning ordinance, the expense incurred
in anticipation of the lifting of the moratorium on the E1 Rancho del Rey
area is not justification for the granting of a variance.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
There are no other properties within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area
which have been granted an exception from the west to east development policy,
therefore, approval of this request would constitute granting the applicant
a special privilege.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detri-
ment to adjacent property, and will not materialZy impair the purposes of the
zoning ordinance or the public interest.
Development of the subject property would result in a slight increase in
traffic which, by itself, would not be detrimental to adjacent property,
however, the granting of the variance would impair the public interest by
singling out a parcel and allowing a departure from this important policy.
Such an action would open the door to adjacent parcels and the effect would
be to undermine the policy.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed development is directly contrary to the E1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan and would undermine the component of that plan.
VARIANCE APP~I~TJO~m FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:
Fi)lng Fee: m Zoning Administrator Review
Application
NO.
Date Received
~ml~lanning Commission Review Receipt No. ,~)
Section 1.
NAME(S) OF APPLICANT Mr. Charles R. Lewsader and Hr. William ?. Lee (~eneral
591 Camino del la Reina, Suite 510
APPLICANT'S MAILING ADDRESS San Diego, California 92~08
TELEPHONE NO: HOME ~BUSI~ESSi. (714) 297-5260
APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (Okm, Lease, Etc.) Own
ON WHAT DATE DID THE OWNER PURC~SE THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED __
August, 1977
WHAT DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY THAT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE VARIANCE
YOU ARE REQUESTING ~one
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED ~-3
IF THIS IS A VARIANCE FRO~ THE AREA, YARD, OR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, NOTE WHICH:
ITEM MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR
Area {if below minimum lot area) n/a
Fr6nt Yard {property line to
building line) n/a
Side Yard (state which)(property line
to building line) n/a
Rear Yard (property line to building
line) n/a
Height n/a
Lot Frontage n/a
Sign (height, area, etc.) n/a
Other (specify) Variance requested City Council policy Permission to
is from west to east expresses a prefer- develop the subject
development poiicy, ence for west to property on the
east development east side of
through the E1 Rancho E1 Rancho del Rey.
del Rey area.
Section 2.
Describe in detail ,what will be done on the property if the v~riance is approvL, d. FOr
example, "the proposed addition will be 5 feet from the side property line ......
The propert~ will be developed in a manner consistent with
Section 3.
The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator is required by law to make written findings
of fact in accordance with section 19.14.190 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code that all
of the following conditions generally apply to the property in question, Please answer
all questions and explain in detail how your request conforms to the questions.
a. Does a hardship peculiar to the property exist- because of its size, shape, location,
topography or relationship to surrounding properties - that was not created by any act of
the owner? (Hardship does not include personal, family or financial problems, or loss of
profit. )
Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference.
b. Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
prJperty rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity of
the subject property, or will the applicant be granted a special privilege if this
request is approved? How will granting of the variance bring your property to parity
{equality) wi th other properties?
Please see Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
-2-
c. Will the approval of this variance affect or be harmful to adjacent oropert?, er
n~terially impair the intent of the Municipal Code or the public interest?
Please see Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorposated herein
by this reference.
d. Will the granting of this variance be contra~ to the objectives of the General
Plan and its various ele~nts?
Please see E×hibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Please see E×h±bit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference for additional reasons why this variance
should be granted.
I swear under penal~ of perju~ that the foregoing statements contained in this applica-
ti on are to the best of ~ kn~ledge and belief, true and correctly represented.
Signature of Applicant or Agent
Section 4. Failu~ to use variance (Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal ~de)
Failure to use a variance within one (1) year after the effective date thereof shall make
said variance null and void. H~ever, the Planning Co~ission or Zoning Administrator
may grant an extension of time if requested ~ the applicant provided no changes have
occurred that would af~ct the original findings which justified the approval. The
variance is considered to have been used if the applicant has completed the project or
spent substantial mon~ toward construction of the project, but if work stops for 3
months afar starting and the one year has passed, said variance bec~es null and void.
Section 5. Transit of variance to future owners (Section 19.14.230 of the Nunicipal Code)
Unless the conditions of approval speci~ that the variance cannot be transferred, the
variance applies to the proper~ and is transferable to future owners, provided the
of time.
-3- Form PL-16
Rev, 5/76
EXHIBIT "A"
The Chez Bonita property is in a unique location as
compared to the neighboring E1 Rancho del Rey property. The
property fronts on the already existing stub of east "H" Street
and all utilities are also in. Virtually all of the other
property in the E1 Rancho del Rey area which is affected by the
west to east development policy currently lacks access to both
the circulation system and to public utilities. The Chez Bonita
property has access to both. The property's unique location
and access is a relevant factor warranting a variance since the
lack of street access and utilities has been the major justifica-
tion for the west to east development policy.
The hardship experienced in not being allowed to develop
the Chez Bonita property at this time is peculiar to the property
by virtue of the property's location within the E1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan area. Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee have spent over
$2000 in revising a project that~they planned for the property
in order to meet the requests that were stated by Kenneth Lee
in his letter dated February 16, 1978. (Attached hereto as
Exhibit "A-l" and incorporated herein by this reference.) The
revisions were made in reliance on representations that if such
changes were made, upon the lifting of the E1 ~ancho del Rey
moratorium development of the property would be allowed to proceed.
Their actions were taken and their expenses were incurred before
the west to east development resolution was formally adopted on
August 8, 1978. (Cf., Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
(1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 158, 162-62.)
Practical difficulty in developing property may constitute
a. hardship sufficient to warrant the granting of a variance. Chula
Vista Municipal Code § 19.14.190. Because of the west to east
development policy, which is really directed at a significantly
larger parcel of land to the west of this subject property,
Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee are prevented from putting their property
to any use although streets, curbs, gutters, and all utilities
are in and despite the fact that they have spent over $2000 in
a good faith effort to comply with every change in their plans
requested ~y the City as a condition of development approval.
mr. dames Ashbaugh
CEP Associated
5555 Magnetron Blvd..
San Diego, CA 92111
Dear Jim:
We have completed our preliminary review of the proposed apartment
project located on the north side of "H" Street for the L & L
Development Company. We offer the following comments for your
c.~^deration.
s you aware, the subject area is located in an area subject to
a moratorium as established by the Chula Vista City Council and, as
such, no formal submissions for development will be considered by
the Planning Commission or City Council until said moratorium is
lifted.
.~The proposed General Development Plan designates a density range
of 11 to 18 dwelling uni~s..per acre for this 2.6 acre site. This
would allow a maximum of 4~dwelling units rather than the 48 as
shown.
.~Parking will not be permitted on East "H" Street; therefore, all
of the required parking for tenants and guests must be accommodated
on site. Forty~]~2-bedroom units would require a total of:8-~'d~
parking spaces to be/located on site.
~4.'~ The density range of 18 units per acre corresponds very closely
to the R-3-G density as established in the zoning ordinance and,
therefore, this project would require usable open space at a similar
ratio. The open space requirement for the R-3-G use is 600 square
feet per unit. In accordance with the Chula Vista Des.ign Manual a
minimum of 60 square feet of private usable open space is to be
designed for units above the first floor and increased to 100 square
feet for the first floor units. The remaining open space may be
utilized as common open space for all the residents.
~. In an attempt to minimize the impact of the three story buildings,
you have chosen to place the buildings away from the street at a
lower elevation. I believe this offers an excellent solution to
lower the buildings and bring them more in scale with the streetscape;
however, it does present a problem in allowing the parking area to
EXHIBIT PAGE t
^.c..., ch.,. vi.,., c^ 92o o 5'gFs o PAGES.
Mr. James Ashbaugh
February 16, 1978
Page 2
dominate the "H" Street frontage. The Design Manual states that it
should be considered undesirable to locate offstreet parking between
the building and the street and in those cases where it becomes necessary
to do so, the parking area shall be heavily screened by a combination of
planting material and decorative masonry walls. Parking is not to be
allowed in the front setback area. Since the minimum setback in the R-3
zone is established at 15 feet from the front property line, the parking
area would be located 17 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Those park-
ing stalls adjacent to "H" Street should be screened by a combination of
a solid carport wall and freestanding wall in conjunction with landscape
screening. As you may recall in our earlier conversations, it is neces-
sary to design a(5]foot wide bike path adjacent to the parking area,
which would reduc~ the landscaping width to approximately 12 feet between
the/sidewalk and the b!ke path.
.~Additional detail should be shown on the easterly driveway which is
being directed to "H" Street through excess right of way under the
control of the City. Your client would be responsible for finishing
that area as it relates to driveways, curb cuts, and landscaping.
~. ~The proposed regrading of the westerly portion of the property will
be permitted only as it can be determined that it will contribute to
the amenity and utility of the project (per Chula Vista Design Manual).
This could best be determined by showing the proposed grading and r~!ation-
ship to the adjoining property to the west and north in this vicinity. An
overall grading concept would give us a better understanding of the finished
product.
~.x/ It would appear that the buildings have been arranged in such manner
as to take advantage of the northerly view across the east leg of Rice
Canyon. This view could virtually be eliminated by development of the
property to the north, We therefore feel it is essential that you coordin-
ate this design with at least some preliminary thinking on the development
of that multiple family property to the north. Fragmented or piecemeal
planning of this north area would, in our opinion, be detrimental to both
~.~erties.
Lastly, but most importantly, the Design Manual emphasizes that an
inviting atmosphere and appearance shall be created in the pedestriam
oriented area through the use of landscaping, walls, fencing, plazas,
statues, fountains, and other design features. These are details which
you would want to address in the final design.
If you wish to discuss any of these matters in further detail, please call
me at 575-5101.
Very truly yours,//~
KGL :hm
Development of the other property in E1 Rancho del Rey
will be allowed when the lots thereon have been fully improved
with curbs, gutters, streets, and utilities. The Chez Bonita
property already has all of the required improvements. Develop-
ment of the other property in E1 Rancho del Rey is apparently not
prohibited until "H" Street is completed, but only until the
west to east installment of improvements has reached the particular
parcel. Granting this variance would, therefore, bring the Chez
Bonita property into parity with the other property in E1 Rancho
del Rey and would not constitute a granting of any kind of a
special privilege.
It should also be noted that, to the extent it was under
consideration or in effect at the time, the west to east policy was
ignored when the plans for a 57-1ot subdivision, Bonita Haciendas,
which is located west of the subject property, was approved. When
Bonita Haciendas was approved, an opinion was expressed that the
resulting traffic would go north to Bonita Road while traffic from
Chez Bonita would go south to Telegraph Canyon Road. No one has
been able to substantiate that hypothesis with doc~umentary
evidence. Subsequently, a commerical development to the northeast
of Chez Bonita was approved. For these other ~rojects, any west
to east development preference has been waived on the basis that
the Council felt that the existing circulation systems would
support the resulting traffic burdens. The traffic that will
result from the chez Bonita development can also be acco~odated
by the existing ciroulation system. Granting this variance would,
therefore, bring the Chez Bonita property into parity with these
adjoining properties where development has been approved. (For
a discussion of the traffic impact from the Chez Bonita development,
see the discussion under Section 2, paragraph ~ of this applica-
tion.)
traffic in the flow. The traffic resulting from development of
the Chez Bonita property would be concentratgd in the normal
residential period f~om five to six %n the evening and not in
the college-bound peak period during which Telegraph Canyon Road
is the most congested. Even during peak hours, volumes on
Telegraph Canyon Road do not reach the maximum hourly volume
which can be carried!bY a two-lane road.
-2-
EXHIBIT "C"
The granting of this variance will not adversely affect
or be harmful to adjacent property or materially impair the
intent of the Municipal Code or the public interest. This
variance is requested only to allow Chez Bonita to develop its
property now rather than at some indefinite time in the future.
Chez Bonita is not requesting any variance from the zoning of
its property other than the time at which it, may proceed with
development.
The west to east development policy was intended to
ensure that utility and circulation systems are provided for
property before its development is allowed. The Chez Bonita
property has adequate utility and circulation access.
Another goal of the west to east development policy was
to ensure that existing traffic routes would not become over-
crowded to the detriment of the residents of the area. The City
Council has, in the past, expressed its opinion that all of the
traffic from a proposed Chez Bonita development would turn south
on Otay Lakes Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. The applicants fail
to see how any such opinion could have been formulated. Assuming,
however, that all such traffic did, in fact, turn south such traffic
would not overburden any existing street. The following information
has been extracted from the Draft Traffic Access and Circulation
Re~ort, prepared by James B. Hare, of MSA, Inc., as revised
January 22, 1979:
The traffic currently carried by East "H" Street is negligible.
South of the East "H" Street intersection, Otay Lakes Road is
improved, striped, and currently operates at between 41 and 71
percent of design capacity and will be operating at no worse than
75 percent of design capacity when all approved new projects are
in place. The peak hour on Telegraph Canyon Road occurs between
six and seven in the evening, which is about an hour later than
that experienced by most residential streets in the area. This
phenomenon has been explained by the predominance of college-bound
EXHIBIT "D"
The granting of this variance will not be contrary to
the objectives of the west to east development resolution.
As the Directors of Planning and Public Works noted at th(3
September 5, 1978, City Council meeting, the purpose of the
west to east policy is to avoid development which would create
additional demands for east-west travel in advance of the
construction of east "H" Street. As emphasized in Section 2,
paragraph c, of this application, no significant traffic burden
would result from the development of the Chez Bonita property.
AS the City Attorney has pointed out, the usual basis
for instituting a phased or sequential development schedule
is to insure that utilities, including water and sewer, and
road networks will be logically extended by virtue of the
development, instead of irrationally mandated by leapfrog
development, and that the cost to the public for providing
services to newly developed areas will not be exorbitant because
of their remoteness from established service areas. The City
Attorney has also recognized that neither of these conditions
pertain to the Chez Bonita situation. There is a total network
of utilities and roads serving the Chez Bonita property and there
is no reasonable expectation that the costs of ~erving that property
will be any greater than costs already being sustained by the
public for other adjoining and already developed areas further east.
EXHIBIT "E"
The applicants believe that this variance should be
granted to avoid injustice resulting to citizens who have
honestly and in good faith worked with the City and have relied
upon its representations to their detriment.
Chronological Summary of Events
In August, 1977, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee, thc two
general partners of the Chez Bonita partnership, acquired their
interest in the subject property.
In the Fall of 1977, at a City Council meeting, Mr. Lewsader
and Mr. Lee were told that a moratorium which had earlier been
imposed on the E1 Rancho del Rey area would be lifted by April,
1978, and that development of the Chez Bonita property should then
be allowed to proceed. In February, 1978, a site plan was submitted
to the Planning Department. Subsequently, the above-referenced
letter from Kenneth Lee was received in which Mr. Lee made several
suggestions and cor~nents. In excess of $2000 was expended in
revising that proposed project to bring it into strict compliance
with all of the City's requirements and suggestions. Specifically,
the number of units was reduced to 45, and the applicants changed
their plan to comply with the prohibition of parking on "H" Street,
the open space requirements, parking set back-requirements,
including provisions for landscaping and a bike path, the need
for eastern access, the problems with grading on the west side
and the requirements of creating an iPviting atmosphere.
In the Fall of 1978, and after the adoption of a Master
Plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area, the moratorium was lifted.
The Chez Bonita property was still zoned R-3 for multiple
family residential use. Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee were ready to
proceed with development, but were precluded from doing so by
the City Council's adoption of the west to east development policy.
Upon several occasions, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee requested
the City Council to except their property from the west to east
development policy. After some consideration had been given to
the request, the Council denied it, but invited Chez Bonita
to submit an application for a variance through the Planning
Conunission.
The City Is Estopped to Prevent Development of the
Property Consistent with its Zoning
The doctrine of equitable estoppel has long been
established in this State:
"The vital principle is that he who by his
language or conduct leads another to do what
he would not otherwise hav~ done shall not
subject such person to loss or injury by
disappointing the expectations upon which he
acted. Such a change of position is sternly
forbidden." Seymour v. Oelrichs (1909) 156
Cal. 782, 795.
In February, 1978, the City, by its conduct in submitting
its comments and revisions that would have to be made before its
approval of the then proposed project would be granted, impliedly
represented that plans could be submitted for final approval
within the following few months.
Apparently the City has had a preference for west to
east development for several years, such preference being
expressed in the General Development Schedule of the General
Development Plan. Formerly, this "preference" was simply that
and was not impose~ upon developers as a ~equ~.e~t for approval
of developments. Developments were in f~ct allowed to proceed in
derogation of t~is preference despite the ,fact that the City
expressed its dislike for some developers' lack of cooperation.
(See letter from George P. Lindberg, City Attorney, to Mr. Jacob
Shearer, August 16, 1977.) We think it probable that the City
knew, or should,have known, that a mandator,y west to east development
policy was in the works at the time it made the aforementioned
represen~tati~ons ,to Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee had no reason to disbelieve the
city's representation that they would be allowed to proceed with
development of Chez Bonita once the moratorium on E1 Rancho del
Rey was lifted. The foregoing facts satisfy the test for determining
when an estoppel will be found. [7 witkin, Summary of California
La__w (Sth ed.) ~ 132.]
-2~
The party to be estopped must have intended that his
conduct be acted upQn, or must have so acted that thc party
asserting the estoppel had a right to believe that it was so
intended. [City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462,
489.] Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee rea$ol~ably believed that they
were to act upon the City's list of recommendations and revisions
to their development plans if they wanted to ensure that the
project would be ~pprovedo Implicit in the City's specific and
detailed delineation of each required modification to the submitted
development plan was the intent that those modifications be made
before the final plan was submitted.
In reliance upon the City's representations that the Chez
Bonita development would be allowed to proceed once the E1 Rancho
del Rey moratorium was lifted during 1978, and that compliance
with the list of recommendations made by Kenneth Lee would speed
project approval once the moratorium was lifted, Mr. Lewsader and
Mr. William Lee expended over $2000 revising and redesigning
their project to conform with the recommendations. This money
would not have been invested had Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee known
that approval of their development might be indefinitely delayed
as a result of the adoption of a mandatory west to east develop-
ment policy.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied against
a public agency when the interest of justice clearly require it.
(City of Long Beach v. Mansell, supra, at 495.) Estoppel may even
be invoked against the government when its application will defeat
the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public,
so long as the injustice which would result from a failure to
uphold the estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify the
effect upon the public interest or policy~which would result
from raising the estoppel. [City of Lpn~ Beach v. Mansell, supra,
at 496-97; Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973~ 34 Cal.App.3d 613,
820.] In applying such a balancing test to this situation, it
-3-
should be noted that while the City may have a legitimate interest
in the goals of the west to east development policy, i.e., the
orderly development of the area and the regulation of traffic
volumes, it really has no interests which would be adversely
affected by allowing development of this property° While
applying estoppel in this situation would be in derogation of
the west to east development policy, it would not adversely
affect to any significant extent the protectable interests of
the community in orderly development and traffic control. (Se8
Section 2, paragraph c, of this application, above.)
Besides the lack of detriment to the community from
applying estoppel in this situation, the City will actuall~
benefit from the additional moderate income housing that will
be provided by Chez Bonita. The creation of such housing is
one of the general objectives of the Specific Development Plan
of E1 Rancho del Rey.
The unfairness to Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee if estoppel
is not applied is of a significantly greater magnitude than any
possible detriment that may result to the community. Not only
has an amount in excess of $2000 been expended in complying
with the City's design recormmendations and requirements, but
Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee have a~so spent over 18 months
anticipating the commencement of development of their property,
only to be repeatedly disappointed by postponements. Accordingly,
the City should be estopped ~ro~ denying Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee
their right to develop the property at this time.
-4-
LOCATOR--~ I
PCV"~O-I ,, I
EXEMPTION FRO~ WE~,T I'
TO EAST DEV. POLICY J NORTH