HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/09/24 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 24, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of September 10, 1980
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Consideration of request for extension of time and expansion of variance
PCV-80-1 fer exemption from the west to east development
policy of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
2. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property on the north
side of Main Street at Maple Drive to R-3-P-12 - Pacific
Engineering
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-32,
Telegraph Canyon Villas, 183 unit condominium project at
600 block Telegraph Canyon Road
4. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Conditional use permit PCC-80-21, request for
expansion of existing mini-shop at 196 Broadway - Atlantic
Richfield Company
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of zoning text amendment PCA-81-1 relating
to replacement of garage conversions
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
r~eting of September 24, 1980
1. Request for extension of time and expansion of variance PCV-80-1 for exemption
from the west to east development policy of the E1 Rancho
Del Rey Specific Plan
A. BACKGROUND
1. On November 20, 1979 the City Council failed by a vote of 3-2 to overturn
the Planning Commission's approval of a zone variance permitting development on
2.6 acres located on the north side of East "H" Street approximately 600 feet
west of Otay Lakes Road. The variance requested an exemption from the "west to
east development policy" of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to allow the
subject property to develop before a plan, program and schedule for the construction
of "H" Street between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road has been approved.
2. The approved variance expires if it is not utilized by November 20, 1980.
3. An Initial Study, IS-80-11, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Conmittee on August 16, 1979. The
Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Grant the extension of variance PCV-80-1 to August 26, 1981, and its expansion
to include the additional 1.2 acre site to the north (See attached exhibit).
C. ANALYSIS
1. Michael Witte, attorney for Huffman Construction Company, has submitted a
written request (copy enclosed) to extend the effective date of a previously granted
zone variance for an additional nine month period, to expire August 26, 1981. The
request also involves the expansion of the property which is the subject of the
variance from 2.6 to approximately 3.8 acres.
2. Since the purchase of the property by Huffman Construction in December, 1979,
the company has been working to prepare a precise plan for submittal to the City.
3. In reviewing various proposals with the architect working for Huffman Construc-
tion, the Planning Department noted that a 1.2 acre developable area owned by the
Gersten Company was located directly north of the 2.6 acre site. Because of the
anticipated difficulty in developing such a small parcel by itself at some future
date, the Department suggested that the Huffman Company either purchase outright
or work out a joint venture to integrate the 1.2 acre parcel into their plan.
4. According to the letter, the Huffman Construction Company is now willing to
acquire the smaller parcel from Gersten and to proceed with modifications to their
present plans to incorporate the two sites into one development plan.
5. The revision to the almost completed plans will necessitate an expansion of
the existing variance to include the 1.2 acre parcel and the extension of the
variance to August 26, 1981.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980 Page 2
6. The staff had recommended denial of the original variance; the Planning
Commission approved it, and the Council voted 3-2 to overturn the Planning
Commission's decision and deny the request. However, a 4/5 vote of the Council
is required to overturn the Planning Conmission's action on a variance, so the
Planning Commission's action stood and the variance was approved.
7. The expansion of the variance by adding approximately 1.2 acres to the
project will be considered by the Environmental Review Committee on September 22,
1980, just prior to the September 24 Planning Commission consideration. If the
Conmittee determines the addition to be significant, a hearing will be required
necessitating a continuance of this request until October 22. An oral report
will be given to the Planning Commission on this matter at the September 24
meeting.
D. CONCLUSION
The added 1.2 acres will allow the project to be planned and constructed as one
development, thus simplifying the applicant's and city's review problems. A
detailed subdivision, specific plan, and site plan/elevations will be submitted for
Planning Commission approval as the next stage of development.
HJNCHY, WITTE, WOOD, ANDERSON ~ HODGES
SAN
CALIFOR. N IA
92103
September 12, 1980
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue ~i~i? I ~ ~
Chula Vista, CA 92010
ATTN: Jim Peterson
Re: Request for Extension of Variance Resolution
No. PCV-80-1 (September 12, 1979) and
Council Resolution No. 9860 (November 26, 1979)
Dear Mr. Peterson:
By the above-referenced Resolutions, Chez Bonita,
a general partnership, was granted a variance waiving the
west to east policy of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
to permit development of 2.6 acres located north of "H"
Street, approximately 600 feet west of Otay Lakes Road.
Our client, Ray L. Huffman Construction, Inc.,
purchased the subject property from Chez Bonita in December,
1979. Huffman Construction has been proceeding with the
preparation of its precise plan for the development of the
property for submission to the City prior to the variance
expiration date of November 26, 1980.
Our client has recently been approached by both
your Planning Department staff and Gersten Construction Co.
regarding a one acre plus parcel owned by Gersten, located
contiguous to our client's 2.6 acres on the north.
Due to the size and topography of the Gersten
parcel, there is some concern that it might be neither
practicable nor feasible to develop the parcel separately,
nor desireable, from a planning standpoint, for the property
to remain undeveloped. As a result, Huffman Construction
was asked to consider the purchase of the property from the
Gersten Co.
Our client is willing to acquire this property
from Gersten, and include same as part of its development
plans; provided it can do so without prejudicing its ability
to proceed with the development of its existing 2.6 acre
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
September 12, 1980
Page Two
parcel. Since our client would not be able to complete its
studies nor modify its development plans within the time
remaining on its existing variance, we would respectfully
request your granting our client a nine month extension of
the existing variance, to August 26, 1981.
Thanking you in advance~for your consideration of
this request, I am, // ,
E
MBW :enr
cc: Ray L. Huffman Construction, Inc.
ATTN: Bob Rubalcaba
OF' $.ad~J DIEGO
OF CHUI.~ VISTA
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980 Page 3
2. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property on the north
side of Main Street at Maple Drive to R-3-P-12 - Pacific
Engineerin9
BACKGROUND
This public hearing has been continued on three previous occasions at the request
of the applicant. The applicant is now preparing a precise plan which will not be
completed in time for consideration at this meeting. He is therefore requesting
another continuance of the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1980.
City Planning Commi~_,on Page 4
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-32,
Telegraph Canyon Villas, 183 unit condominium project at
600 block Telegraph Canyon Road
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map known
as Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32, for the conversion of a 183 unit
apartment complex presently under construction into a two lot condominium project.
The subject property, with an area of 8.94 acres, is located on the north side of
Telegraph Canyon Road between Crest Drive and Paseo Del Rey, and is zoned R-3.
2. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review as a class l(k)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for
Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32, subject to the following condi-
tions.
1. The developer shall grant 7.5' easements for street tree purposes along
Paseo Del Rey and Crest Drive prior to approval of the final map.
2. The developer shall grant to the city the drainage easement shown on the
tentative map prior to approval of the final map.
3. The developer shall dedicate to the city right-of-way as indicated on the
tentative map for street purposes prior to approval of the final map.
4. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street and
drainage improvements as shown on Chula Vista Drawings 80-17 through 80-19.
Said improvements shall be constructed prior to approval of the final map.
5. The developer shall enter into a separate agreement with the City of Chula
Vista stipulating that they or their successors in interest shall be
required to participate in a reimbursement or other district for the
construction of Telegraph Canyon Road prior to the approval of the final map.
6. The applicant shall offer 3% of his units (5 units) for sale or rent at
rates affordable by families earning no more than the median income for San
Diego County as defined by the federal government ($17,700 per year at this
time). If such housing is offered for sale, provisions satisfactory to the
City Attorney shall be made to regulate resale so as to avoid windfall
profit taking. In lieu of the provisions of such housing on site, the
applicant may make a payment equivalent to ~of the market value of the
project, such payment to be deposited into a fund designated for the purpose
of providing low and moderate income housing. Alternatively, such housing
may be provided in another location approved by the City Council.
7. Construction of the storage areas within carports or garages and revision to
the patio area for the one bedroom units shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the units.
City Planning Commission Page 5
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
8. The storage for the one bedroom units located within a garage or carport
shall contain a minimum of 60 cu. ft.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North R-1 Single family dwellings
South R-3-G-P Condominiums
East P-C Single family dwellings
West C-C-P Commercial (under construction)
2. Project.
a. In January, 1980 the Design Review Committee approved (subject to
certain conditions) the construction of 183 apartment units on the 7.8 acre
project site. The development, which is presently under construction, consists
of 34 two and three story residential structures, plus a two story recreation
building with two guest rooms located on the second floor. The design of the
buildings is contemporary Spanish with the roofs and stucco exteriors. The
three story structures, of which there are ten, are located in the center of the
project near the easterly boundary and surrounded on the other three sides by
the two story structures. The Telegraph Canyon drainage channel traverses the
southerly portion of the property, resulting in a minimum setback from Telegraph
Canyon Road of almost 60 feet.
b. There are four basic floor plans with storage and private open space
provided as follows.
Private
Unit Bedrooms No. Open Space Storage
1.O 1 43 60 s.f. 120 c.f.(adj.) + 60 c.f. minimum,
garage or carport
2.0 2 72 80 s.f.(lst flr.) 216 c.f.(adj.)
60 s.f.(balcony)
2.1 2 56 80 s.f. 216 c.f.(adj.)
3.0 3 12 120 s.f. 280 c.f.(adj.)
c. The units are served by a private loop street which connects to both
Crest Drive and Paseo Del Rey. Texture paving and an entry sign will be utilized
at each entrance to identify the private street.
d. The majority of the two story buildings have garages located under-
neath the one bedroom units. There are 147 garages. In addition, there will be 68
carports, plus 95 open parking spaces, bringing the total amount of parking
provided on site to 310 spaces for the 183 units.
3. Tentative map.
The developer proposes to divide the project into a two lot condominium
project. Lot 1 (westerly) will have 66 units with lll parking spaces, and lot 2
will have 117 units with 199 parking spaces.
City Planning Commission Page 6
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
D. ANALYSIS
1. At the time of approval by the Design Review Committee the developer
had not considered the development for condominiums and, therefore, did not
propose any storage. In order to provide the required storage for condominium
units, carports were added to the plan which provided covered spaces as well as
the storage at the end of the carports. Storage was added within the patio area
resulting in some reduction in the amount of private open space provided for
certain units. However, the majority of the units were able to add the storage
areas without reducing the private open space below the minimum requirement.
The open space for one group of two bedroom units required an adjustment. The
developer has submitted a change for these units to bring the open space up to
code requirements. Since the units are under construction, this change order
needs to be implemented prior to occupancy of the units. In all other respects the
project either meets or exceeds the code requirements for condominiums.
2. As has been the case with recent developments, staff is recommending that
3% of the units be made available at prices affordable by median income families.
E. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Sections 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Telegraph Canyon Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-32, is recommended
for approval based on the following findings:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposed development conforms to all standards established by the City
for such project.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements:
streets, sewer, etc., which have been designed to avoid any serious health
problems.
3. Approval of the project will not adversely affect the public service needs
of residents of the City or available fiscal and environmental resources.
4. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan as follows:
a. The conversion of apartments which are under construction in the R-3
zone does not affect the following elements of the General Plan:
Land Use, Circulation, Seismic Safety, Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways,
Bicycle Routes, Public Buildings, Conservation, Open Space, and Parks
and Recreation.
b. Housing Element - The decision to construct condominiums instead of
apartments will provide additional opportunity for home ownership for
the residents of the community. A minimum of 3% of the units will be
made available for persons qualifying as low or moderate income
families.
C-C-P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980 Page 7
4. PUBLIC HEARING (cont.): Conditional use permit PCC-80-21, request for
expansion of existin9 mini-shop at 196 Broadway - Atlantic
Richfield Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item was continued from two previous Planning Commission meetings
to allow the applicant to submit his plan before the full Commission (only six
members were present at the first hearing). In addition, the applicant has been
working with the staff to modify the plan to resolve certain site conflicts.
2. Atlantic Richfield Company is requesting permission to be allowed to
conduct the sale of gasoline in conjunction with a proposed retail market at
196 Broadway in the C-T zone. The site is presently operating as a service station
and has permission to operate a mini-shop in connection therewith.
3. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial change of land use
and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA regulations.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings stated in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to
approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Signing for the site shall be limited to the following:
a. One mini-market wall sign facing "E" Street (approx. 3'x9').
b. One mini-market wall sign facing Broadway (approx. 3'x9').
c. One monument sign providing identification and price located at the
corner of Broadway and "E" Street.
d. One wall sign (maximum letter height, 20") announcing 24 hour operation.
e. Other minor pedestrian or vehicular oriented signs as determined by the
Director of Planning to be necessary for the function of the business.
2. The placing of any unauthorized signs on the site, including paper window
signs will constitute a violation of the conditional use permit and will
constitute grounds to consider revocation of the permit.
3. The site plan shall be modified, in accordance with the staff exhibit, to
shift parking along the easterly property line.
4. All landscaping of new and existing landscape areas shall be subject to
approval of the City's Landscape Architect. Street trees shall be required
on Broadway and "E" Street.
5. No storage or display of merchandise shall occur outside of the building.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a 0.42 acre parcel (125' x 156') located at the north-
west corner of Broadway and "E" Street. The site is presently developed with a
City Planning Coninission Page 8
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
service station which offers full service to motorists (auto repair, full and self
service gasoline) including a mini-shop offering snacks, cigarettes and soft drinks
which was approved by the Planning Conmission in 1978. In addition, the City
Council approved an appeal in 1979 allowing a limited sales area for beer and wine.
The 1500 sq. ft. building is located in the approximate center of the lot with
covered pump islands on the east and south sides of the building.
2. Proposed development.
The applicant proposes to discontinue the auto repair service and convert the
entire building into a retail market while retaining self service gasoline pumps
under the canopy area. After conferring with staff, the applicant altered the
previously submitted site plan to include the following modifications:
a. The easterly driveway, closest to "E" Street,is proposed to be closed.
b. Seven offstreet parking spaces have been added (3 on the east and 4 on
the north).
c. A substantial amount of landscaping has been added near the north
property line and along Broadway.
d. Parking stalls have been relocated to minimize conflicts with the
gas pump area.
e. The canopy and gas pumps adjacent to Broadway have been removed.
f. The structure is to be repainted.
g. The large pole sign at the intersection (21' high, 119 sq. ft. in area)
is replaced by a decorative, low profile, monument sign, approximately
5 feet high and 60 sq. ft. in area.
3. Similar request.
The proposed conversion results in the market becoming the principal use of the
property, thereby requiring that a conditional use permit be obtained for the sale
of gasoline in conjunction therewith. This is very similar to the situation which
occurred at Broadway and "L" Street when the existing service station was removed
and replaced with a retail store and market which requested permission to sell
gasoline. The difference between the two situations is that in this case the
existing building is to be converted into a market. The proposal at Broadway and
"L" Street was filed without action, however, the Planning Department had recommended
denial due to potential traffic conflicts between the various land uses and possible
congestion in the circulation layout.
4. The Building Department has indicated that certain modifications will be
required to insure a safe emergency exit and fire wall separation between the market
area and the canopy area. The building can be modified to comply with this require-
ment.
City Planning Commission Page 9
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
5. Prior to the continuance of this application, staff had recommended
against its approval. Concerns were expressed that the applicant was attempting
to use the site with only minor site adjustments and problems could arise from
cars stacking up and blocking driveway approaches at a very busy intersection.
We noted that combining a retail store with volume gasoline sales can function well
only if independent circulation systems are employed. The revisions to t§e plan
submitted by the applicant offer viable solutions to the majority of staff's concerns.
The only significant question left unresolved is whether automobiles will spend
more time at the pump while the drivers shop in the store, which could, in turn,
cause a problem of vehicle stacking. Staff has concluded that if such a condition
occurs the customers will soon go elsewhere for their purchase of gasoline and it
is unlikely that stacking would extend into the public right of way.
D. CONCLUSION
1. Allowing the expansion of the market, which results in a closure of the
service activities now available at this station will have a negative impact on
the travelling public and local residents needing such service. However, in
evaluating this aspect it is appropriate to review the remaining services
which are still available in the area. Two full service gas stations remain
directly across Broadway from the subject property. In addition, one full service
and one service station which has been converted to a repair garage are in
operation along "E" Street near the I-5 freeway.
2. The approval and modifications of this station afford the opportunity to
provide a more aesthetically pleasing station by adding a substantial amount of
landscaping, repainting the building, and replacement of the large pole sign with
a low profile monument sign. All of these improvements will bring the station
more into line with the goals of the scenic highway element of the General Plan,
which includes the "E" Street area between Broadway and I-5.
3. The conversion from a full service station to a retail convenience market is
unlikely to occur in mass. Each request must be analyzed giving consideration to
not only aesthetics and the acceptability of the site plan, but also to the service
requirements and availability in a given area of town. In the final evaluation of
this site, staff believes that the negative aspects of conversion are not sufficient
to recommend denial.
E. FINDINGS
1. ~hat the propeeeduse at the partioular looation is necessa~j or desirable
to provide a service or facility ~ich kill contri~te to the general ~ll ~eing
of the neigh~rhood or the community.
The facility will continue to offer the sale of gasoline with expanded retail
service goods. In addition, improvements to the site involving circulation,
signing and landscaping will contribute to the general well being of the
community.
2. That such use w~ll not, under ~ne oircumstances of the particular case, ~
detrimental to the health, safety or general ~lfare of persons residing or
working in the vicini~d, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The site plan provides for separate parking areas to assist customers who
City Planning Commiss,un
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980 Page l0
who wish to make purchases other than gas, while maintaining good access
around the building and adequate stacking areas for the pump island.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The plan complies with all city regulations subject to the conditions
required for approval.
4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The granting of this request will allow for the appearance of the site to
be enhanced in compliance with the goal of the Scenic Highway Element of
the General Plan.
%
~ ~ S~RV.
~ STA.
~ ~SHO~ ~ RET.
~ PAINT
k k ~ SHO~ ST0~
ROd: ATL~iC RICH~ Co.
~ 196 BROA~AY
' E" STREET
EXHIBIT A
PCC-80-21
Expand ~t~ min/~hop ' "
City Planning Commission Page ll
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of zoning text amendment PCA-81-1 relating
to replacement of garage conversions
A. BACKGROUND
1. At a recent study session the Planning Commission discussed the present
provisions of the zoning ordinance regarding garage conversions and directed the
Planning Department to propose an amendment to the code which would require a
replacement garage in the event of a conversion of the existing garage.
2. An Initial Study, IS-SI-lO, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on September 8,
1980. 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-Sl-lO and find that this project will
have no significant environmental impact.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending
the code as shown in Exhibit "A".
C. DISCUSSION
1. Present parking requirements.
The zones which presently require a two car garage are the R-E, R-1 and R-2
zones. In addition, while not specifically covered in the code, single family,
two family and, in some instances, condominium developments in the P-C Planned
Community Zone have been required to provide a garage parking for the units. This
has been accomplished through the use of development standards required for each
development in the P-C zone. Conversion of these garages has typically been pro-
hibited by the development standards.
2. History of parking requirements.
Covered parking for single family development has been required since 1961.
The following is a brief history of the covered parking requirement:
a. Prior to 1961 - no parking required.
b. 1961-1964 - two spaces required, one of which had to be a carport
or garage.
c. 1964-1966 - two-car garage required, 400 sq. ft. minimum.
d. 1966-1969 - two-car garage required, conversion allowed only if the
garage was replaced.
e. 1969-1976 - two-car garage required, replacement not required for con-
version. Replacement parking had to be located behind
front setback, however, Zoning Administrator could approve
front yard parking, architectural compatibility required.
f. 1976-present - same as 1969-1976 except for more specific guidelines
regarding the architectural treatment to match the exterior
of the home.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980 Page 12
When the last amendment in 1976 was first submitted to the Planning Commission,
it required a replacement garage for conversions and prohibited parking within
the front setback. The proposal was prompted by a request from the City Council,
however, considerable controversy developed and the end result was a minor revision
regarding the architectural appearance of the conversion.
3. Other local agencies.
The Planning Department recently conducted a telephone survey of several other
jurisdictions in the county to verify their regulations regarding parking require-
ments and garage conversions. The attached table {Exhibit "B") outlines the
requirements of the various jurisdictions surveyed. In brief, the table indicates
that the agencies have the following similarities:
a. Each jurisdiction requires a minimum of two offstreet parking spaces
with initial construction; four require a garage or carport and three
allow open parking.
b. Each jurisdiction allows conversion of the parking; however, those
agencies which require the initial construction of a garage or carport
also require the construction of a replacement garage or carport.
c. None of the other agencies allows required parking to be located in the
front setback.
By comparison, Chula Vista's regulations are more permissive than the agencies
surveyed with respect to conversions. The other agencies indicated they have
experienced a number of variance requests to park in the front setback, with the
conversion, however, the vast majority have been denied.
4. Issues.
This city's regulations make it relatively easy and inexpensive for a homeowner
to convert his garage since replacement parking may be located in the front setback
subject to Zoning Administrator approval. In most instances, the existing setbacks
of the residence preclude the placing of parking behind the front setback, thus,
parking within the front setback on the existing driveway has been allowed. From
an aesthetic standpoint, the appearance of the neighborhood tends to become cluttered
by cars parking in the front setback. The elimination of the garage as a parking
area forces more parking to occur either within the driveway {which is typically
located within the front setback) or on the street. In both instances the traffic
safety of this neighborhood is somewhat reduced by each conversion. The requirement
to construct or maintain a garage does not guarantee that cars will utilize the
space; however, conversion of the garage does guarantee that the cars will be parked
on the driveway or in the street. The garage also provides an area for miscellaneous
storage and a place to house a washer and dryer.
5. Setbacks.
The City of Chula Vista is the only city in the county that we are aware of
which provides for encroachment into the rear yard for single story portions of the
building to within l0 feet of the rear lot line. This has the effect of providing
the homeowner a greater opportunity to add space to the existing dwelling without
having to convert the garage or request a variance. This provision further adds to
the flexible nature of the Chula Vista code.
Page 13
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 24, 1980
6. Proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment to the code would reinstate the requirement for a
replacement garage. It will also cover certain developments within the P-C
zone in order to provide consistency throughout the city. If the amendment is
adopted certain trade-offs would result. The requirement would retain the intent
of the enclosed garage and provide offstreet parking with future conversion.
However, a large majority of homeowners would not be able to convert because
many of the lots in the city do not have sufficient area or side yard setbacks to
accommodate either access to the rear or the construction of a new garage.
D. ANALYSIS
One of the main arguments in favor of retaining permissive garage conversion
regulations is that conversion provides the least expensive method of increasing
the living area of a home. However, garage conversions tend to have a negative
effect on property values, due to additional parking of cars in the street and
driveway. This is especially true if a number of conversions are concentrated in
one area. Therefore, even though the individual homeowner may enjoy an inmediate
savings, in the long run it is likely to be at the expense of his property value
and that of his neighbors and the community as well.
EXHIBIT "A"
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Amend Sections 19.62.170 and 19.62.190 to read as follows:
19.62.170 Residential parking--Two car garage
requirement--Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of this section and Sections 19.62.180 and 19.62.190, to
require that all dwelling units in the A, R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones as well as
single family and two family developments in the P-C zone shall &isa have
constructed on the same lot as a necessary and essential accessory building
to the residential use of said lot, a two-car enclosed garage containing a
minimum of four hundred square feet and minimum dimension of twenty feet.
The purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking so
as to alleviate the congestion on residential streets and space for the
necessary storage of materials in an enclosure. Said enclosed garage or
appropriate carport, as provided herein, is necessary to protect the general
welfare of residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking
spaces in an open parking lot situation inappropriate to residential develop-
ment and the open and disorderly display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes
and other materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly
appearance.
19.62.190 Residential parking--Twe ea~ §awa§e wequ~ement
--Procedure for conversion to living purposes--
Approval required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of any existing
twe-ea~ carport or garage for living purposes, the property owner desiring such
conversion shall be required to p~ev~de meet the following conditions and
A. A new enclosed garage shall be provided to replace the gara§e being converted
and the new garage shall contain not less than the same number of parking
~paces as the garage being converted. A two-car garage shall be as set Iorth
~n Section 19.62.170 and a one-car garage shall have a minimum area of 200
square feet and minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 20 feet. Twe paved ef~-s~weet
pawk~n§ spaees w~tk m~mam d~mens~e~s e~ te~ ~eet by ~neteen feet fen eaek
sa4d pawk~n§ spaees sha)~ be ~eeated ~a bank ef the fwent yawd setbaeks+
pwev~ded-hewevew~ that the fwent yawd setbaek awed may be usedte aeeemmedate-
the wequ~wed eff-stweet pawk~n§ ~f the p~ans fen sa~d pa~k4n§ spaees-awe
sa~d p~aas te ~nsuwe that the pawk~n§ as pwepesed dees ne~ eweate any ebstae~es
te veh~ea~aw ew pedestw+an twaff~e and weald net be detw4menta~ te the
~n§ ne~ghbewheed, ~f the ~ee~n§ a~e(stwatew d~sapp~eves the pawk4ng p~aes~-
~he pwepewty ewnew-may f~e an app~eat~en fen a vaw4anee as pFev4ded ~n
ehaptew, Tandem parking as provided in this chapter will not satisfy the parking
requirements.
B. A new carport or garage shall be provided to replace an existing carport being
converted and shall contain not less than the same number of parking spaces.
Peepew ene~esed seewa§e spaeee The wequ+wed seeea§e unit sha~ een{a~n a m4n4m~m
ef e(§hty sqaawe feet ef f~eew awed fen twe-eaw §ava§es and Cew~y squawe feet fen
ene-eaw §awa§es~ and sha~ be ee ~ess ~han s~ feet ha§h~ w~th ne ethew d4mens~en
~ess than feaw feet~ and sha)~ have d~weet eatew~ew aeeess.
C. All plans for the conversions of existing garages for living purposes, as
well as plans for new garages or carports, shall be submitted to the planning
department for approval, to insure that the conversion is compatible in design
and materials with the existing dwelling. Plans for garage conversions shall
shew e6~he~e fully alter the exterior of the garage to match the existing house
elevation in colors, materials and trim.
~. ~he e~e~e~ e~ ~he §a~age u~eha~§ed4 e~
~. ~he e~e~4e~ e~ ~he §a~age ~u~y a~e~ed ~e marsh ~ke e~4S~4R§ heuse
e~eva~e~ ~ ee~e~s~ ma~e~a~s~ and ~m~
Additions
............... Deletions
EXHIBIT B
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
Required Parking Conversions
Cit~ C6nv. Conditions Parking in
Allowed front setback
Carlsbad 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to No
meet all setback standards meet all setback standards
La Mesa 2 car garage Yes Must replace with No
2 car garage
£scondido 2 car garage or carport Yes Must replace with 2 car No
garage or carport
E1 Cajon 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to meet No
meet all setback standards all setback standards
San Diego 2 spaces uncovered must Yes 2 uncovered spaces to meet No
meet all setback standards all setback standards
Coronado 2 car garage or carPort Yes Must replace with one car No
garage or carport and one
open space
National City 2 car garage or carport Yes Must replace with 2 car No
garage or carport
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment - Garage Conversions
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
CA~E NO. IS-81-10 DATE: September 8, 1980
A. Background
On July 16, 1980 the Planning Commission conducted a study session
in which the present regulations of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
garage conversions were discussed. At this meeting the Commission
.directed the Planning Department to propose an amendment to the
City Code which would require a replacement garage if an existing
garage is converted so as to preclude its use for parking.
B. Pro~ect Description
The following amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code are
proposed:
Amend Section 19.62.170 and 19.62.190 to read as follows:
19.62.170 Residential parking--Two car garage requirement--
Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of this section and Sections 19.62.180 and 19.62.190, to
require that all dwelling units in the A, R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones as well as
single family and two family developments in the P-C zone shall a%~e have
constructed on the same lot as a necessary and essential accessory building
to the residential use of said lot, a two-car enclosed garage containing a
minimum of four hundred square feet and minimum dimension of twenty feet.
The purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking so
as to alleviate the congestion on residential streets and space for the
necessary storage of materials in an enclosure. Said enclosed garage or
appropriate carport, as provided herein, is necessary to protect the general
welfare of residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking
spaces in an open parking lot situation inappropriate to residential develop-
ment and the open and disorderly display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes
and other materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly
appearance.
city of chula vista planning department
environmental r~view ~ectlon ~V~
19.62.190 Residential parking--~we-eaw §a~age ~equ~emen~--Procedure for
conversion to living purposes--Approval required.
Prior to the issuance a building permit for the conversion of any existing twe-eaw
garage for living purposes, the property owner desiring such conversion shall be
required to p~ev~ae meet the following conditions ama a~p~evahs:
A. A new enclosed qarage shall be provided to replace the qaraqe bein§ converted
and shall contain not less than the same number of parkinq spaces. A two-car
qarage shall be as set forth in Section I9.62.170 and a one-car qaraqe shall
have a minimum area of 200 sq. ft. and minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 20 ft.
Twa paved e~f-st~ee~ pawk~n§ spaces w+th m+m+mum d+mens~ems ef ~en fee~ by
~+netee~ feet few each e~ sa+a pawk~n§ spaees sha)~ be ~eea~ed ~n bank ef ~he
~Pe~t yard setbaekst pwev+ded heweve~ tha~ the fwent yard seahawk a~ea may be
used ~e aeeemmedate the wequ4wed eff-stwee~ pawk~m§ 4f the phams few sa~a
pack,n§ spaee~ are a~pweved by the ~em~m§ aam~n~s~watee: T~e ~em~n§ adm~n~s~watew
s~ah~ e~am~me ~a~d p½a~ ~e +nfuee ~½at the pawk~m§ as pwepesed dees met ewea~e
any ebstae~es ~e veh+eu~aw er pede~tw~am ~wa~e and weuhd net be aetw~mentah
~e ~he suwweaed~n§ ne~§hbe~heed= If the ~ee4m§ adm~m~stwa~ew d~sapp~eves the
pa~W(m§ p~ans~ ~he pwepew~y ew~er ma~ ~e am app~eat~em ~e~ a raw,amen as
pwev~dea ~m th~s 6hap~ew: Tandem parking as provided in this chapter will not
satisfy the parking requirements.
B. A new carport or ~orage shall be provided to replace the existing carport being
converted and shall contain not less than the same number of parking spaces.
e~ e~§ht~ sqaawe ~ee~ e~ ~ee~ a~e: ~e~ ~we-ea~ §a~a§es-amd ~ewty squawe ~ee~ ~ee
ene-eae §awa§es~ amd shahh be me hess than s~ ~ee~ h~§h~ w~&h ne ethe~ d~mems~em
hess tham ~eu~ ~ee~ amd sha~h have d~wee~ e~ew~e~ aeeess,
¢. All plans for the conversions o~ existing garages for living purposes, as
well as plans for new garages or carports, shall be submitted to the planning
department for approval, to insure ~hat the conversion is compatible in design
and materials with the existing dwelling. Plans for garage conversions shall
shew e~hew~ fu11~ alter the exterior of the garage to match the existing house
elevation in colors, materials and trim.
~. ~he e~tew~e~ e~ ~he §awa§e ameham§ea~ er
g. ~he e~ew~ew e~ ~he §a~a§e fa~hy a~tewed temateh ~he e~s~n§ he,se
ehevat~ea ~m ee~ews~ ma~ew~a~s~ ama ~w~m~
Additions
............... Deletions
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed ZTA is not inconsistent with the Chula Vista Zoning
Ordinance and is rot at variance with the General Plan or associated
elements.
D. Identification of environmental effects
Social
The proposed ZTA will restrict the ability of many property owners
to convert their garage into a living area due to the lack of
access and available building area for a replacement garage. This
means of adding living area to existing single family homes in some
cases, has been more economical and convenient than adding a new
room.
The primary social impact will be increased homewoners financial
costs associated with adding residential floor space either through
conversion or adding on in lieu of conversion.
As experienced between 1966 and 1969, when a replacement garage
was required to convert an existing garage, a large number of
illegal garage conversions occured and could be expected to occur
with the proposed ZTA. Since no building inspection would be
achieved with illegal conversions, the potential for safety hazards
relating to wiring, plumbing or structural alterations could exist.
Strict enforcement code designed at informing the public and citing
violations could reduce the potential for illegal garage conversions.
Energy Resources
The requirements of constructing a replacement garage in order to
convert an existing garage will encourage additional depletion of
construction and energy resources, although the amount anticipated
is considered insignificant.
E. Findings of insignificant impact
1, The project is not site specific, therefore will not
adversely affect any natural or man-made resource.
2. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the
General Plan or associated elements and short term goals will
not be achieved to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals.
3. The proposed zoning text amendment is not anticipated to
result in any adverse impacts which could interact to create
a substantial cumulative effect on the environment.
4. The proposed ZTA is anticipated to reduce parking within
residential front setback areas and increase the quality of
the residential environment.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals & organizations
City of Chula Vista D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng.
Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg.
Armando Liuag, Assoc. Planner
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan & Elements
Title 19 of theChula Vista Municipal Code
The Initial .'Tt'ud7 '
.',~: 1 ~:~ ion ,m~] ,'vnluation torres documenting the
findinq.-, r}! n~3 ~;~.m~ [c:.~nt ~mp.h~t: nfo on file and available for
public revi~:w .~t th,~ ,~h~l.~ ~'i::t:n I'l,~nninq D.2pt., 276 4th Avenue,
Chula Vi~;ta, CA
~NVIR~.IENTAL ~VI~W CO0~.,Dr:;ATOR
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section