HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/05/14 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, May 14, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of April 23, 1980
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: a. ZAV-80-5 - Variance request to increase maximum fence
height from 6' to 7'6", 457 "E" Street, "E" Street Ventures
b. PCS-80-13 - Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista
Tract 80-13, Carabella, construction of 11 new condominium
nits at 457 "E" Street
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property at north side of
intersection of Main Street/Otay Valley Road and Maple
Drive to R-3-P-12 - Pacific Engineering
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for modification of precise plan to permit freestanding
sign at Halecrest and Hale Street and reduction in setback
from 5' to 3'2" - Max Greer
4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-8~4- Consideration of the Bay Boulevard/J Street
General Plan Amendment
5. Consideration of the state of conformance of the 1980-81 Capital Public
Works Improvement Program to the Chula Vista General Plan
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 May 14, 1980
1.a. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-80-5 - Variance request to increase maximum fence
height from 6' to 7'6",' 457 "E" Street, "E" Street Ventures
A. BACKGROUND
1. A variance application has been filed to increase the height of a side yard
fence from 6' to 7'6" for a proposed condominium project located at 457 "E" Street.
Due to objections raised by adjoining property owners located to the west of the
subject site, and because of the Planning Commission's previous involvement in this
development, the Zoning Administrator has referred this application to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a class 5.e exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a motion
approving the increase in fence height from 6' to 7'6".
C. DISCUSSION
1. On March 26, 1980 the applicant requested Planning Commission approval for
an eleven unit condominium project to be constructed at 457 "E" STreet. After
objections were raised by the adjoining owners regarding loss of privacy in their
rear yard, the staff and applicant reviewed the project in detail. It was the
conclusion of staff that the most reasonable design solution involved increasing
the side yard fence from 6' to 7'6" in height, and therefore the applicant filed
a zone variance making the request.
2. The applicant's design of the project contemplates subterranean parking and
two living floors above. The entry to the units is ~ained by way of a parallel
walk system extending along each side property line (see attached Exhibit B).
Since the front entry deck to each unit functions as the unit's open space, the deck
is located at the same elevation as the living area. Even if the entry to each unit
were gained through the center drive area, the usable open space would remain in
its present location.
3. The entry deck and the first floor living area are elevated approximately
2½ feet above the finished pad grade. A 6' high fence located on the side property
line would project just 3~ feet above the dQck and living area. Staff is in agree-
ment that such a transition between properties offers very little in the way of
privacy and therefore recommends increasing the fence height to 7'6" or approximately
5' above the living area.
4. Both adjoining homeowners to the west have raised objection to the side
entries and the increase in fence height. The zoning ordinance requires the
installation of a solid 6' high fence to separate multiple family and single
family uses unless waived by the Planning Commission. The applicant in this case
City Planning Commission Page 2
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
has no objection to retaining the fence at 6' in height. If the adjoining single
family home owners continue to raise objection to the increased fence height, the
6' fence is acceptable to staff, although the increase to 7'6" offers better privacy
for all parties.
D. 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 justifying a
variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each
case must be considered only on its individual merits.
Although the project was designed to comply with height restrictions of the
R-3 zone, the adjoining properties will have their privacy diminished unless
the fence height is increased to more closely correspond with normal eye level
on the entry deck.
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 increase in fence height will allow the adjoining properties to retain
much of the privacy they now enjoy and will reduce the impact of the side
entries to the condominium units.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter
or the public interest.
The granting of the variance will provide added privacy to the adjoining
properties.
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 General Plan will not be affected by this variance.
City Planning Commission Page 3
Agenda Items for Meeting of 5/14/80
b. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-80-13 - Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista
Tract 80-13, Carabella, construction of ll new condominium
units at 457 "E" Street
A. BACKGROUND
1. This public hearing was continued from the March 26 Planning Commission
meeting to allow the Design Review Committee to reconsider the project. The
Commission directed staff to inform adjacent property owners of the consideration
by the Design Review Committee so that they could attend and offer testimony if
they desired.
2. On April 17, 1980 the Design Review Committee again reviewed the proposed
condominium. After hearing testimony from adjacent residents the Committee
unanimously found that the architecture, utilizing a side entry was appropriate,
and recommended that the side yard fencing along the west property line be increased
in height from 6' to 7'6". This increase places the fence 5' above the entry
decks, which are approximately 2~ feet above the pad (see Exhibit B).
3. On April 22, 1980 the Zoning Administrator considered a variance, ZAV-80-5,
to allow the increase in height of the fence from 6' to 7'6". The two adjoining
property owners to the west raised objections to the increase in fence height.
For that reason and because of the Planning Commission's previous consideration of
the development, the Zoning Administrator referred the matter to the Planning Com-
mission for consideration. The variance request of the fence height is the preceding
item on this agenda.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-7 and find that this project will
have no significant environmental impact.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section D of the report to the Commission
for the meeting of March 26 (copy attached) adopt a motion recommending that the
City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract
80-13, subject to the following conditions:
a. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of a 250 watt
high pressure sodium vapor light on "E" Street approximately 27 feet
west of the easterly property line. The developer shall enter into a
subdivision improvement agreement with the City to provide for the
installation of said street light. A surety bond shall be posted with
the City to guarantee said installation prior to approval of the final
map.
b. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of a 30 foot wide
driveway as indicated on the tentative map. He shall also be responsible
for the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk where existing drive-
ways are removed. An excessive width driveway permit shall be obtai:led
prior to construction of the driveway. The foregoing work shall be
accomplished under a separate construction permit.
c. The owner shall grant a l0 foot wide easement along "E" Street to the
City for street tree purposes.
City Planning Commission Page 4
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
d. The developer and his successors in interest shall enter into an agree-
ment to hold harmless and indemnify the City from any liability resulting
from the failure of the proposed sump pumps to pump drainage to "E"
Street. The developer further agrees to defend the City in any lawsuit
brought for this purpose.
C. DISCUSSION
Inasmuch as the decision of the Design Review Committee did not significantly
alter the project, the original report on the tentative subdivision map is still
valid and is attached hereto. The Planning Commission is advised that the Design
Review Committee approved the basic design for the project in September of last year
and the reconsideration by the Committee on April 17, 1980 was for the purpose of
determining the appropriateness of the side entries as well as a solution to maximize
the privacy of adjoining residences.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 26~ 1980 Page 7
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-13,
Carabella, construction of ll new condominium units at
457 "E" Street
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Carabella,
Chula Vista Tract 80-13, for the development of a 16,150 sq. ft. parcel located
at 457 "E" Street in the R-3 zone into a one lot condominium project consisting
of ll townhouse units.
2. An Initial Study, IS-80-7, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on August 2, 1979,
who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recom-
mended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-7 and find that this project will
have no significant environmental impact.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map
for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13 subject to the following conditions:
a. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of a 250 watt
high pressure sodium vapor street light on "E" Street approximately
27 feet west of the easterly property line. The developer shall enter
into a subdivision improvement agreement with the City to provide for
the installation of said street light. A surety bond shall be posted
with the City to guarantee said installation prior to approval of the
final map.
b. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of a 30 foot wide
driveway as indicated on the tentative map. He shall also be responsible
for the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk where existing drive-
ways are removed. An excessive width driveway permit shall be obtained
prior to construction of the driveway. The foregoing work shall be
accomplished under a separate construction permit.
c. The owner shall grant a l0 foot wide easement along "E" Street to the
City for street tree purposes.
d. The developer and his successors in interest shall enter into an agree-
ment to hold harmless and indemnify the City from any liability resulting
from the failure of the proposed sump pumps to pump drainage to "E"
Street. The developer further agrees to defend the City in any lawsuit
brought for this purpose.
City Planning Commission Page 8
Agenda Items for Meeting of 3/26/80
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a .37 acre level parcel located on the north side
of "E" Street and presently developed with a Spanish style single family dwelling
and detached garage which are scheduled for removal to make room for the proposed
development.
2. Proposed development.
a. On September 9, 1979 the Design Review Committee reviewed and approved
the site plan and architecture for the development of ll two-bedroom townhouse
units located in two three-story structures. The ground floor level will be lowered
approximately 3 feet below the level of the street. The first floor will be
two-car garages for the townhouse units above. The vehicular access is located on
either side. The front door entry to the units is located along the side property
lines.
b. The contemporary style buildings will have a series of shake shingle
shed roofs interspersed by elements of a flat roof. The exterior will De primarily
stucco with wood trim on the garage doors and balconies.
c. Each unit is provided 200 cu. ft. of storage space at the end of each
two car garage. Stairways are provided from within the garage to the living area
above, thereby qualifying it as adjacent storage.
D. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision
map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13, 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. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use Element - The General Plan designation for the site is High
Density Residential, 13-26 dwelling units per gross acre. The density
of the project of 29 units per net acre is consistent with this desig-
nation.
b. Circulation Element - The adjoining streets are improved to handle
the present traffic flow.
Page 9
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 3/26~80
c. Housing Element - The new development will provide additional housing
and offer an expanded choice of ownership. Inasmuch as the development
contains fewer than 50 units, it is exempt from the requirement to address
the need to provide housing for low and moderate income families.
d. Conservation, Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements - No parks
are planned on the site and the developer will be assessed fees in
lieu of park land dedication.
e. Noise Element - The property is not subject to objectionable noise
levels.
f. Seismic Safety and Safety Elements - The development is not adjacent
to or on any known fault systems.
g. Scenic Highways Element - The site does not abut a Scenic Highway or
gateway.
h. Bicycle Route Element - No bicycle routes are proposed adjacent to
the site.
i. Public Buildings Element - No public buildings are proposed on the
site.
4. In recommending approval of this project the Planning Commission has
considered the housing needs of the region in which the subdivision is
situated and balanced those needs against the public service needs of
the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: HEDRICK CONDOMINIUMS
Project Location: 457 E STREET
Project Proponent: J.H. HEDRICK & CO.
1516 W. REDWOOD SAN DIEGO 921~1
CASE NO. IS-8~-7 DATE: AUGUST 2, 1979
A. PROJECT SETTING
THE PROJECT INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY .37 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 457 E STREET. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH ONE SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. ADJACENT LAND USES INCLUDE
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND MULTIPLE FAMILY
UNITS TO THE NORTH AND EAST. THE SITE IS ALSO ADJACENT TO E STREET
WHICH HAS A CURRENT ADT OF 17,55~.
DUE TO THE SITES CURRENT DEVELOPED STATE, VEGETATION CONSISTS OF
DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING. THERE ARE NO KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR
HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESENT. THE LAND AREA IS LEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM
NATURAL SLOPE OF 2% AND NO SEISMIC HAZARDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
WITHIN THE VICINITY. EXPANSIVE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS PROPOSAL ENTAILS THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. UNITS WILL CONSIST
OF BELOW GRADE, TWO CAR GARAGES WITH TWO STORY LIVING UNITS ABOVE.
APPROXIMATELY 16,15~ SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPING IS PLANNED INCLUSIVE
OF THE RECREATIONAL AREA.
C. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS
NET DENSITY PROPOSED IS 29.6 DU/AC 'WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
SITES R-3 ZONE. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS ALSO IN.CONFORMANCE
WiTH THE ON SITE HIGH DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL
PLAN.
D. ~DENT~F~CATiON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
SOILS
ACCORDING TO THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPT., EXPANSIVE SOILS MAY BE
PRESENT ON SITE. TO ENSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION, PREPARATION OF A
SOILS REPORT SHALL BE REQUIRED AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPLEMENTED.
NORSE '--"~
AN ANALYSIS OF NOISE GENERATING FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON E STREET
WAS CONDUCTED AND CONCLUDED THAT UNITS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED
ADJACENT TO E STREET WOULD BE SUBdECT TO AN L.~ NOISE 'LEVEL OF
69 DB AND AN L.~ LEVEL OF 79 DB, TO ENSURE T~T INTERIOR NOISE
LEVELS WITHIN ~E PROPOSED UNITS DO NOT EXCEED 45 DB, A NOISE ANALYSIS
SHALL BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICIAN AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMEN-
DATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROdECT,
SCHOOLS
THE LOCAL dUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IS CURRENTLY OPERATING IN EXCESS OF
CAPACITY, TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE
TO NEW STUDENTS RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA, WRITTEN
ASSURANCE OF SUCH SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
E. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
1. A SOILS REPORT SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBSEQUENT
RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED.
2. A NOISE ANALYSIS OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC SHALL BE PREPARED
BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICIAN AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS
INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT.
3. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN
ASSURANCE OF CLASSROOM AVAILABILITY FROM APPROPRIATE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.
F. FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECT ON
ANTURAL OR MAN-MADE RESOURCES NOR WILL THE PROJECT BE SUBJECT
TO ANY UNUSUAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD. ADVERSE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT
ON SITE HOWEVER, THESE CONDITIONS CAN BE MITIGATED TO ENSURE
STABLE CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED
TO ACHIEVE SHORT TERM TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG TERM ENVIRON-
MENTAL GOALS.
3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL
AND NONE ARE ANTICIPATED TO INTERACT TO CREATE ANY CUMULATIVE
ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
4. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
IN VEHICLE TRAFFIC NOR WILL ANY SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT
ON HUMAN BEINGS RESULT. POTENTIAL IMPACT DUE TO TRAFFIC
GENERATED NOISE CAN BE MITIGATED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL.
G. CONSULTATION
1. INDIVIDUAL~ 'AND ORGANIZATIONS ~'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA D. J. PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
GENE GRADY, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & HOUSING
BILL ULLPICH, ASSOC. ENG.
TED MONSELL, FIRE MARSHAL
JOHN MACEVICZ, ENVIIRONMENTAL CONTR. COMM.
2. DOCUMENTS
IS-76-69 EYERS APARTMENTS
HIGHWAY NOISE PROGRAM REPORT 117
The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the
findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public
review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA.
EN 3 (rev. 5/77)
STREET
Z
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980 Page 5
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-80-G - Request to prezone property at north side of
intersection of Main"Street/Ota~ Valley Road and Maple Drive
to R-3-P-12 - Pacific Ep~ine~'r'in9
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves an application to prezone approximately 4.34 acres of
vacant property located in the County of San Diego on the north side of Otay Valley
Road and Main Street and on both sides of Maple Drive. The request is to prezone
from RS-6 (single family residential, 6 dwelling units per acre) to R-3-P-12
(multiple family residential, 12 dwelling units per acre subject to a precise plan).
2. An initial study, IS-80-57. of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on April 17, 1980.
The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects
and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-57 and find that this project will
have no significant environmental impact.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council prezone the subject 4.34
acres of properto to R-3-P-8 and establish the following guidelines for development:
a. The setback from Otay Valley Road shall be at least 25 feet.*
b. Setbacks on the portion of Maple Drive across from the single family
homes shall be at least 25 feet.
c. Setbacks from all other public streets shall be at least 15 feet.
d. The recommended density is predicated on the installation of an
enclosed underground drainage system with the surface area devoted to
landscaping and/or parking. If the channel remains open, the matter
shall be returned to the Planning Commission and City Council for a
reevaluation of the permitted density.
e. The permitted density shall be based on net land area after dedication
of public rights-of-way.
f. Building permits shall not be issued for any one lot until a precise
plan has been approved by the Design Review Committee for the entire
4.34 acre site.
*Setbacks shall be measured after the dedication of required rights-of-way.
City Planning Commission Page 6
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use:
North County RS-7 Condominiums (Autumn Hills)
South R-2 & R-2-P Condominiums (Play, nor)
East R-3-P-12 Condominiums (under construction)
West County RS-6 Single family dwellings and vacant
2. Existing site characteristics.
a. The project site is comprised of four parcels located at the south-
east corner of an area identified as Woodlawn Park. The most westerly parcel is
an irregularly shaped lot containing 0.88 acres and separated from the other
parcels by Maple Drive. The parcel has street frontage on all four sides as
follows: north - Spruce Road; south - Main Street; east - Maple Drive; and,
west - Walnut Drive. Topographically, the westerly 20% of the property~slopes
toward the east and is 5-10 feet lower in elevation than Walnut Drive and
approximately 5 feet below Main Street. The remainder of the site is relatively
level.
b. The other three parcels with a combined acreage of 3.46 acres, are
located at the northeast quadrant of Maple Drive and Otay Valley Road. (Note:
Main Street changes in name to Otay Valley Road in the vicinity of Maple Drive.)
The property is relatively level, lying 5-10 feet below Otay Valley Road except
for a 15-20 foot high 2:1 slope bank existing on the easterly 50 feet of the site.
A natural drainage channel, flowing north to south, has cut a substantial
(approximately 10 ft. wide and l0 ft. deep) crevasse traversing the property
diagonally from the northeast corner to the approximate mid-point of the frontage
along Otay Valley Road. The drainage flows in an improved trapezoidal channel to
the north of the property with a wide transition structure located in the northeast
corner of the property. The structure dissipates the water velocity, leaving the
improved channel before entering the natural channel. The drainage flow continues
under Otay Valley Road via an enclosed underground box culvert and is picked up on
the south side of the road by a grass swale within the residential development.
3. Streets.
The majority of the streets within the Woodlawn Park are generally substandard
in width and improvements, consisting of a two lane (approximately 18-24 ft. wide)
paved surface with an A.C. berm and no sidewalks. Walnut Drive, Spruce Road and
the portion of Maple Drive south of Spruce Road have right-of-way widths of only
25 feet. The northerly portion of Maple Drive is a cul-de-sac street serving
approximately 80 dwelling units with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. The extreme
northerly portion of Maple Drive is improved with typical subdivision standards
(curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights).
4. Annexation
The applicant has petitioned for annexation to the City of Chula Vista. The
determination of said annexation is dependent upon an equitable tax transfer agree-
ment between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego.
City Planning Commission Page 7
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
D. ANALYSIS
1. The subject property is designated on the Chula Vista General Plan for
Medium Density Residential, 4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre, which would
permit a density range of 17 to 52 units on the 4.34 acres. The density of the
adjacent development is as follows: north - 7 units/acre; south - 10 units/acre;
east - 12 units/acre (under construction); and, west - approximately 6 units/acre
(authorized). The request~dzoning of R-S-P-12 would permit 12 units/acre which is
at the extreme upper end of the density range of the General Plan.
2. The adjacent zoning pattern and topographic conditions present a rationale
in favor of zoning the area to a category other than detached single family. The
developments on three sides are attached condominium units and the subject property
is somewhat removed from the majority of the Woodlawn Park, being located at the
extreme southeast corner. In addition, the land configuration and the location
and cost of undergrounding the drainage channel probably makes single family develop-
ment impractical.
3. Determining what density should be applied to the project is difficult
because a development plan has not been submitted and because the net usable area
of the property will be affected significantly by the following factors:
a. The dedication of land for street widening purposes;
b. The restrictions placed on building locations due to the alignment of
the drainage system;
c. The existing and proposed slopes;
d. The establishment of building setbacks;
e. The ultimate status of Spruce Road (it appears that Spruce Road does not
significantly add to the circulation of the area and might be vacated);
and
f. Elevation of the project and the effect of traffic noise coming from
Otay Valley Road.
E. CONCLUSION
In staff's judgment the subject property should be developed at a density below
that of the various developments located at the intersection of Otay Valley Road
and Melrose. That intersection is appropriate for medium to low density multiple
family development, but as we move to the west toward the older single family area,
the density should be reduced. This is reinforced by the very recent construction
of three large detached single family homes across Maple Drive from portions of the
subject property. This factor plus the topographic and drainage considerations,
together with the lack of a plan prepared by the applicant for the property, justify
a recommendation for a density of 8 DU/acre.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Chula Vista Properties
Project Location: North side of Otay Valley Rd. and Maple Dr.
Project Proponent: Pacific Engineering
9471 Ridgehaven Ct., Suite E San Diego, 92123
CASE NO. IS-80-57 DATE: April 17, 1980
A. Project Se~ting
The proposed project area totals approximately 4.3 acres located
at the northeast and northwest corners of Maple Dr. and Otay Valley
Rd. (See attached locator map) The project site is located within
the County of San Diego and is contiguous with the City of Chula
Vista boundary.
The project consists of 4 parcels of vacant land, one of which is
west of Maple Dr. The site has an average natural slope of 5%,
although there are manufactured slopes along the easterly boundary.
Traversing the 3 lots east of Maple Dr., and running north to south,
is a natural drainageway which empties under Otay Valley Rd.
Adjacent land uses include condominiums to the north and to the east
(presently under construction,) Otay Valley Rd, condominiums and
retail to the south and single family and vacant lots to the west.
The ~roject site is vacant and has not been previously developed,
however, it has been cleared and has been subject to informal use.
Aside from a few eucalyptus trees on the perimeter of the site and
one existing mature tree (a species of Jacaranda), in the middle of
the lot, there is no significant vegetation. No rare or endangered
species have been identified in the immediate area of the project.
Expansive soils may be present on the project site. A soils inves-
tigation will be required to determine the extent of such.
Special Report 123, published by the Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology,
indicates that a fault trace, inferred through phgtographic evidence,
extends north and south, stopping just north of the subject property.
B. Project Description
The proposed project involves three discretionary acts, 1) to prezone
4.3 acres of property to R-3-P-12 (12 du/ac) and, 2) to annex 4.3
acres of unincorporated area into the City of Chula Vista, and 3)
de-annex the territory from the Montgomery Fire Protection District.
The site is currently zoned R-S-6 in the County of San Diego, which
allows a maximum of 5.8 dwelling units per acre. The prezoning
IS-80-57 '~ -2- '~
would permit an increase in density from 5.8 du/ac to 12 du/ac.
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed R-3-P-12 zoning is in conformance with the medium
density (4-12 du/ac) designation on the City of Chula Vista General
Plan.
D. Identification of environmental effects/mitigation
The following environmental effects will not occur as a result of
the proposed project but rather through future development of the
project area which will be authorized by the proposed action. Prior
to the consideration of any specific development proposal, additional
environmental review will be required.
1. Geology
Special Report 123, published by the Calif. ,Div. of Mines &
Geology, indicates that an earthquake fault, inferred by
photographic evidence may be a short distance to the north of
the project. It is unknown whether landsliding could occur on
this property at this time, however, because of the topography
of the site, this is not likely. A geological report shall be
prepared prior to any subdivision or development of the property.
2. Soils
The Engineering Dept. has indicated that expansive soils may
be present in the project area. The submission of a soils
report and incorporation of all recommendations shall be
required prior to any construction on the site.
3. Drainage
Traversing the 3 easterly lots is a north/south running,
unimproved drainageway which flows under Otay Valley Rd. In
addition, a portion of this area is within the projected
100 year flood level. Development of the project site
abutting the existing unimproved drainageway and within the
flood plain will be subject to standard engineering requirements
which will mitigate any adverse impacts.
4. Noise
The project site is adjacent to Otay Valley Rd. which is
designated as a "major road" on the General Plan and a generator
of relatively high noise levels. A noise analysis will be
required prior to any additional environmental review or any
construction on the project site.
5. Schools
The present enrollment level at Rohr Elementary School is
reaching capacity. Future development of the project area
IS-80-57 '~ -3- ~'
will decrease the service level of this facility. A letter
from each school district, indicating the adequacy of school
facilities, shall be required prior to the issuance of any
permits for additional dwelling units.
6. Parks
The need for additional park facilities within the area will be
generated by future development in the project area. In-lieu
park development and acquisition fees shall be required prior
to any subdivision or construction of any new dwelling units.
E. Findings of insignificant impact
1. Since the proposed actions will not result in any great
physical change, no natural resources nor hazards will be
affected. Prior to the division of any parcels, additional
environmental review will be required and the extent of any
physical damage to the environment fully evaluated.
2. The project is in conformance with the Chula Vista General
Plan and associated elements and is not anticipated to achieve
short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals°
3. The effect on schools and parks will be limited and
mitigable and no substantial impacts are anticipated which
could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on
the environment are anticipated.
4. The project will not have any effect on traffic or
associated emission nor will the project result in any other
hazard which could prove detrimental to human beings.
F. Individuals and organizations consulted
City of Chula Vista D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Eng.
Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg.
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Comm.
LAFCO, Ann Brickelmeyer, Env. Mngt. Coordinator
Agent for owner, Richard. S. Pearson
Documents
Special Report 112, Calif. Div. of Mines & Geology
IS-80-36 Palm Ave./Acacia Ave. Annex.
The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the
findinqs of no significant impact are on file and available for public
review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
COUN
/
/
/
/
/
R-3-P-I
'US
I I ,
I I I
R
COUNTY
OITY OF
STREET OTAY VA
C-N-P
PCZ - 80-0
REQUEST TO'PREZONE 4.34oc. OF
~ ~ .~OUNTY"LAflD TO R-3-P-I~ ,
City Planning Commission Page 8
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for modification of precise plan to permit free-
standing sign at Halecrest an~ Hale S~reet and reduction
in setback from 5' t6 3'2" - Max Greer
A. BACKGROUND
1. In September of 1976 the City Council approved a precise plan, PCM-76-17,
for a dental office at the southwest corner of Hale Street and Halecrest Drive in
the C-O-P zone. The precise plan was subject to several guidelines, one of which
prohibited the use of any freestanding signs. The applicant, now in operation, is
seeking a modification of the precise plan guidelines in order to be allowed a
non-illuminated ground sign, located 3 feet rather than the required 5 feet from
the front property line on Halecrest Drive.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a class ll.a exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
approving the proposed ground sign and the reduction of the required setback from
5 feet to 3 feet, subject to the condition that said sign shall be non-illuminated.
C. DISCUSSION
1. C-O District regulations.
The zoning ordinance allows ground signs, 4 feet in height and up to 12 sq. ft.
in area with a 5 ft. setback from the right-of-way. However, the applicant's
plan did not call for a sign and because of the prominence of the site, the guide-
lines established at the time of the rezoning prohibited all freestanding signs.
2. Sign.
a. The request for approval involves a sign which has already been erected
in violation of the precise plan guidelines and without benefit of approval or a
building permit. (The applicant has submitted photographs of the existing sign
which will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting.)
b. The existing sign is a non-illuminated ground sign constructed of
wood and located on the Halecrest frontage of the property. The sign contains an
area of approximately 7 sq. ft. and stands approximately 4 feet in height.
c. The sign is located approximately one third of the way up a planted
slope with a 3 foot high retaining wall at the base of the slope and approximately
3 feet from the property line on Halecrest Drive an~ 18 feet from Hale Street.
D. ANALYSIS ~
The sign is very attractive and unobtrusive, being similar in size to many
real estate signs. The location does not interfere with the visibility of the
intersection and maintaining a greater setback would only cause the sign to be
located at a higher elevation. In addition, other office uses are permitted ground
signs, therefore, approval of this request would enable the applicant to enjoy
the same privilege.
City Planning Commission Page 9
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
E. FINDINGS
1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case,
be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
~rking in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed sign will not interfere with visibility at the intersection and
is located on the street (Halecrest) which also serves the shopping center
to the east and not on the street which is primarily residential.
2. That such plan satisfies the principles of the application of the P
Modifying District as set forth in Section 19.46.041.
The proposed sign is small er in size and lower in height than signs normally
allowed in the C-O zone.
3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning
~equir~ments shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and
application of the P Precise Plan Modifying District.
Reducing the setback from 5 feet to 3 feet will enable the sign to be at eye
level. Because of the slope bank, a 5 ft. setback would place the sign at a
higher elevation where it would lose much of its effectiveness.
4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the
adopted policies of the city.
The sign is in keeping with good design standards.
SFD
SERVICE
STATI, SHOPPING
CENTER
TelegraOh
MFD
"" ~ ~ MULTIFAMILY
t
/
HALE STREET
"
PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION
Ex~sting ~
Dentol Office.. ~
City Planning Comm' 'on
Agenda Items for Mee~,ng of May 14, 1980 Page 10
4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-80-4 - Consideration of the Bay Boulevard/j Stree).
General Plan Amendment
A. PROPOSAL
This item involves a change in the general plan designation of approximately 13.00
acres of land, located on the westerly side of Bay Boulevard, and in the north-
easterly and southeasterly quadrants of the intersection of Bay Boulevard and J
Street, in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, from "Visitor Commercial" and
"General Industrial" to "Research and Limited Industrial" and "Thoroughfare Commercial."
B. BACKGROUND
The proposed, city-initiated amendment to the plan diagram of the Chula Vista General
Plan is designed to bring the recently-certified Local Coastal Program of the City
of Chula Vista and the said general plan into a state of conformity.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study (IS-80-44) of possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on February 28, 1980.
The ERC concluded that the said project would not produce significant environmental
effects, an,~ recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the submitted Negative
Declaration.
D. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
1. Adjacent General Plan Designations (Exhibit A):
North - General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East - Interstate Freeway
West - General Industrial, Public Open Space/Park, and Railroad right-of-way
2. Adjacent zoning and land use (Exhibit B):
North - I Vacant
South - I S. D. G. & E. power plant
East Interstate Freeway
West I Railroad right-of-way, S. D. G. & E. power plant, Bayfront Park, and vacant
E. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-44, and find that the subject project
would not significantly impact the environment.
2. Adopt a motion which recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amend-
ment to the plan diagram of the Chula Vista General Plan--1990.
City Planning Commis Jn
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980 Page ll
F. ANALYSIS
1. The proposed Bay Boulevard/J Street General Plan Amendment involves five,
distinct parcels of land, which are described and located in the following table:
Table 1
Description and Location of the Five
Parcels of Land covered by the
Proposed General Plan Amendment
Parcel Area Assessor's Description Zone Location
1 1.81 acres 573-330-15 I N.E.Cor. of Bay B1. & J Street
2 0.40 acres 571-170-10 I S.E.Cor. of Bay B1. & J Street
3 0.94 acres 571-170-09 I S.E.Cor. of Bay B1. & J Street
4 6.00 acres 571-170-08 C-V-P Westerly side of Bay B1.
north of K Street
5 3.88 acres 571-250-08 C-V-P Westerly side of Bay B1.
south of K Street
2. The subject parcels of land were originally located within the Tidelands
Industrial Belt, and later became a part of the Bayfront Community. These parcels
have been subjected to standard zoning, as well as the provisions of the Bayfront
Specific Plan, the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, and/or the Local Coastal Program.
As the medium-range plans which govern the development of the subject parcels have
increased and changed, the General Plan has remained comparatively static. The
resultant inconsistencies, which have become varied and complex, can be readily
discerned by a careful study of the following tabular analysis.
Table 2
Tabular Analysis of the Land Use Plans
Which Govern the Territory Covered by the
Proposed General Plan Amendment
Proposed General Local Coastal
Parcel ~front Plan* Zoninq Plan General Plan Plan Amendment Program
i Not Addressed I Gen. Indst'l Thoroughfare Comm'l Highway Comm'l
2 Not Addressed I Visitor Comm'l Thoroughfare Comm'l Highway Comm'l
3 Not Addressed I Visitor Comm'l Thoroughfare Comm'l Highway Comm'l
4 Highway Comm'l C-V-P Visitor Comm'l Research & Ltd. Industrial
Industrial
5 Highway Comm'l ¢-V-P Visitor Comm'l Research & Ltd. Industrial
Industrial
* Bayfront Specific and Redevelopment Plans
City Planning Commis an Page 12
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 14, 1980
3. While the lack of planning consistency manifested in Table 2 would normally
be indicative of a city-planning program which is out of control, such is not the
case in the present situation. The Bayfront Community is a redevelopment project
area, and standard zoning and specific plans are not suited to its needs.
Redevelopment project areas require special developmental strategies and tactics.
Since these areas redevelop on an incremental, organic pattern, and their land use
and spatial relationships are susceptible to those changes prescribed by the market
place, their plans and regulations must be flexible. Wherever Euclidean zoning
is used or partially used to effectuate a redevelopment plan, the lack of planning
synchronization manifested in Table 2 tends to evolve.
4. The most important medium-range plan in the Bayfront Community is the State-
certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and it is important that the LCP and the Chula
Vista General Plan be brought into a state of conformity. The amendment proposed
in this report, and graphically depicted in Exhibit A, would foster this conformity.
5. The proposed amendment would not make Chula Vista's zoning plan and the LCP,
as they apply to the territory in question, consistent. This consistency, which
is less important than general plan-LCP conformity, must await subsequent action.
The territory in question could be rezoned, or the underlying zoning could be
removed, and replaced by a redevelopment land-use plan, in order to solve the
consistency problem in question.
6. The proposed general plan amendment would not only promote plan conformity, but
would support the LCP's excellent land-use proposals for the Bay Boulevard/J Street
area.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: Multi Use Center/Bay Blvd.-J St. GPA
Project Location: J Stmeet and Bay Blvd.
Project Proponent: Equity Directions
2152 Dupont #217 Irvine, CA 92714
CASE NO. IS-80-44 DATE: February 28, 1980
A Project Setting
The proposed project involves 6 parcels of land located north and
south of J St. and east and west of Bay Blvd., consisting of 17.56
acres. An office building and parking lot is located to the north
of the project area with industrial storage and railroad tracks
located to the west. The central two parcels are located north of
J St. and east of Bay Blvd. adjacent to an open drainage channel
and I-5 freeway and consist of a combined total of 1.8 acres. The
remaining parcels are located on the south side of J St. between
Bay Blvd. and I-5 freeway and totaling 1.53 acres and south of
J St., west of Bay Blvd, totaling 9.9 acres. An existing open
drainage channel bisects two lots at the southeast quadrant of J
St. and Bay Blvd.
The project sites are generally void of any significant vegetation
or wildlife and there are no significant natural or man made
resources present. Expansive soils have been identified in the
project area. No known geologic hazards have been identified
within the project vicinity.
B. ~ro~ect Description ,
The proposed project is two fold: 1) proposed General Plan Amendments,
and 2) development proposals for a multi use center located on
approximately 7.66 acres.
1. General Plan Amendments
The City is requesting that the following changes to the General
Plan of the City of Chula Vista be made to clarify certain
inconsistencies that have occured through the adoption of the
Local Coastal Program (refer to Exhibit B for location of parcels)
Parcel General Plan Proposed General Plan Amendment
1 Gen. Industrial Thoroughfare Commercial
2 Visitor Commercial Thoroughfare Commercial
3 Visitor Commercial Thoroughfare Commercial
4 Visitor Commercial Research & Ltd. Industrial
5 Visitor Commercial Research & Ltd. Industrial
2. Multi-Use Center
In addition to the City's General Plan amendment request, the
applicant proposes to construct 13,900 sq. ft. of office space
and 49,000 sq. ft. of commercial/industrial floor space combined
in three two-story structures on the northerly parcel of the
project. (See locator) A total of 199 parking spaces are also
proposed.
A 9,000 sq. ft. restaurant with parking for 74 cars is proposed
on 1.48 acres on the north side of J St. in addition to a
service station on.33 acres at the northeast corner of J St.
and Bay Blvd.
The project also includes a 6000 sq. ft. restaurant with 78
parking spaces on a 1.26 acre parcel (includes drainage channel)
on the south side of J St. between Bay Blvd. and I-5. The
parking area shall cover the existing drainage channel which
bisects the site.
A 1900 sq. ft. drive thru restaurant with 15 parking spaces on
.27 acres is proposed approximately 200 ft. south of J St. between
Bay Blvd. and I-5 freeway.
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed land uses will be compatible with the proposed General
Plan amendments and the Local Coastal Program.
The proposed automobile service station shall require approval of a
conditional use permit by the Planning Commission.
D. Identification of environmental effects
1. Soils '
The presence of expansive soils on the project sites may result
in excessive cracking of the proposed foundations and structures.
The soils should be filled and compacted with non-expansive
soils to reduce the potential for cracking. Proper engineering
methods can reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
2. Groundwater
The soils report submitted by the applicant for a project in the
immediate vicinity (IS 80-46 Pullman Std.) indicates the presence
of groundwater. The g~oundwater, primarily saltwater, is subject
to tidal fluctuations and therefore the depth may vary. The
recommendations of a soils engineer and standard construction
techniques shall ~ incorporated into the project to ensure stable
construction.
3. Aesthetics
The proposed project sites are situated on both sides of J St.,
which is designated as a "Gateway to the City". In addition,
the entire project area is located in the Bayfront Redevelopment
area and Local Coastal Program area.
To ensure compatiblity of the site plan and architecture with the
Scenic Highways element of the General Plan, the Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, the project
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment
Agency (City Council. As a "gateway" to the City special
emphasis shall be placed on landscaping adjacent to J St.
4. Transportation/Access
The intersection of Bay Blvd. and J St. is currently operating
at "A" level of service and with the expected traffic increase
from this project, which would drop the level of service to "B",
the need for a traffic light at this intersection is increased.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Recommendations of a qualified soils engineer shall be
incorporated into the project to ensure stable construction.
2. Special emphasis shall be placed on landscaping adjacent
to J St., which shall be in conformance with the "Scenic Highways"
element of the General Plan.
3. Traffic signal fees will be charged to help offset the cost
of signalization at J St. and Bay Blvd.
F. F__in_~din~s of insignificant impact ,
1. The project is void of any significant natural or man-made
resources, although there are natural hazards such as expansive
soils and groundwater. The effects of these hazards can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance by the previously mentioned
mitigation measures.
2. The level of impacts due to the project are small and no
cumulative impacts on natural or man made resources is anticipated.
Conformity to the General Plan will be achieved through the
proposed amendments.
3. Visual impacts of the project will be mitigated through site
plan and architectural review by the Planning Commission and
Redevelopment Agency and there are no impacts anticipated to
occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative
effect on the environment.
4. Increases in traffic levels can be mitigated to an acceptable
level and no related emissions or any hazardous ~utstances are
expected to be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of project
implementation.
G. Consultation
City of Chula Vista D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Eng.
Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. Hsg.
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Comm~
Applicant Jim Michartz
Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan
Local Coastal Program
IS-80-46 Pullman Std. Test Facility
The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the
findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public
review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA.
ENVIRONMENTAL R~VIEW COORDINATOR
EN 3 (~ev. 5/77)
.---..1111111:
... .
Public
Open
Space/
h" ~t .'::: .'
$orl ..........
Diego ..........
Boy :':*:':*.'-..'.'..*- ·.......... .....
EXHIBIT A
-:::::: GPA-80- 4
" ..... ~'AdjQcent General Plan
':::" ' Designations"
"*""'*"""'"** ' '" -':---' ' ' Proposed Amendment to the Co~eral
,'.'-*.'.'.'.'*'.','.'- · ..... Plan for approx I$ ac~ at Bay Bird
..... and J St. fram Visitorcommer-
~' ~o' ~ iai" and "General
'Research and Limited
Railroad .:::::: and # Thoroughfare Commercial ~.
Right .::::::::..
~ '~ 0~ 2(~' ~T.
( i HALSEY
Q % va,. ---
~HR IND
VAC.
I
VAC.
San
Diego
POWER PLANT
~ --~ "~'~'~' s~
PARCELPARCEL INVENTORY AREA
1.81 AC.
0.40 ~C.
0.04 ~C. ..
~ 3.88
TOT~ I~.0~
~d A~d~ to t~e O~l
' ~n f~ o~rox.l~. ~ Boy Blvd.~nd
~ ond "~neml Industr~l" ~"R~ t'i ' ' .
"and "tn nT-'OmUg"~I
and
~ted
Indus~ial
City Planning Commission Page 13
Agenda Items for Meeting of Mey 14, 1980
5. Consideration of the state of conformance of the 1980-81 Capital Public
Works Improvement Program to the Chula Vista General Plan
A. BACKGROUND
1. Section 65401 of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that Planning
Commission shall review the capital public works improvement programs proposed
for their jurisdictions and shall report on the state of conformity of the said
programs to their jurisdictions' adopted general plans.
2. The Chula Vista Capital Improvement Committee has prepared this municipal-
ity's attached draft Capital Improvement Program for lg80-81, and requests the
City Planning Commission's review thereof.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Find that the draft Capital Improvement Program for 1980-81 conforms to the
adopted Chula Vista General Plan and instruct the Secretary of the City Planning
Commission to report this finding to the City Council and the Capital Improvement
Committee.
C. DISCUSSION
1. The Planning Department has reviewed each of the public works projects
constituent to the draft Capital Improvement Program for 1980-81, and believes
that the said projects and the program in its entirety conform to the goals,
objectives, statements of policy, principles, and standards of the Chula Vista
General Plan and its several elements.
2. The Planning Commission's review of the draft Capital Improvement Program
is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - FISCAL YEAR 1980-81
BUILDING AND HOUSING
1) Project Title: Library Building and Police Facility
Building - Energy Conservation Study
Location: 365 "F" Street
Description: This project involves a feasibility
study of the HVAC system to determine ways of
retrofitting the system and/or solar collectors to
save depleting fossil fuels.
Justification: The cost of energy continues to
increase each year; however this is a minor
factor. Our dependence on foreign sources of
fossil fuels and the %~orldwide depletion of fossil
fuels requires that we find ways to conserve and
to ~a~e use of the sun.
Cost: $10,000
pr'~t Title: Police Facility Building - Eg~f~gy
2)
Conse~ation~ Study
Description: Th'~s.project involves a feasibility
study of the HVAC ~y~em .to determine ways of
retrofitting the system,.and/or solar collectors to
save depleting fossil'
Justificatio~'~:~ Th~ cost of en~:gy continues to
increase ~aC'h year, however this ~7. g a minor
factor.? ~ur dependence on foreign ~urces of
rose'fuels and, the worldwide depletio~h~of fossil
..~'ls requires that we find ways to conse~and
to ~ake use of the sun.
Cost: $10,000
2) Project Title: Public Services Building and City Hall -
Install Solar Energy Collector System
Loc~]tion: Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue
Description: A so[ar energy collector system
consisting of 2500 square feet of collector
panels, piping, pumps, controls, storage tank and
electrical work to supplemen~ the hot water
generator presently serving the heating,
ventilating, air conditioning system.
Justification: Conservation o~ depletable energy
resources is a national goal. Installation of
this system will be consonant with that goal.
Cost: $118,000
II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1) Project Title: Block Grant Neighborhood Strategy
Areas - Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and
Curbs.
Location: Various locations within the Feaster,
Mueller, and Vista Square NeighborhoodS
Description: The project includes removing and
replacing deteriorated concrete, sidewalks, curbs
and gutters in various locations within designated
Block Grant Neighborhood Strategy Areas.
Justification: The streets, curbs and gutters
identified are in a deteriorated condition. To
prevent further deterioration, the Council
approved this project as part of the three-year
Block Grant Program. The project was requested by
citizens of the three neighborhood strategy areas
and is an eligible Block Grant expense.
Cost: $120,000
2) Project Title: Block Grant Neighborhood Strategy
Areas Pavement Overlay Program
Location: Various locations in Block Grant
Neighborhood Strategy Areas of Feaster and Vista
Square.
Description: This project involves the
construction of 1-1/2" thick A.C. overlay of
existing streets within Block Grant approved
Neighborhood Strategy Areas.
Justification: THe project has received Council,
HUD and citizen approval in the 1979-80 Block
Grant application. Existing street surfaces are
deteriorated and to avoid further failure of the
pavement a street overlay program is necessary.
Failure to implement this project could result in
an expensive reconstruction project.
Cost: $147,000
3) Project Title: Block Grant Neighborhood Strategy
Areas - Construction of Wheelchai~ Ramps Phase I
Loca~io:~: Various locations in the Vista Square
and Mueller Neighborhood Strategy Areas
Description: Con~truct ccncrete wheelchair ramps
at various corner locations within the designated
Block Grant Neighborhood Strategy Areas.
Justification: Existing pedestrian facilities
lack wheelchair ramps, consequently limiting the
mobility of handicapped residents. Tl%e
construction of wheelchair ramps will eliminate
the said inadequate condition. Also, these
neighborhoods are targeted for residential
rehabilitation, therefore subject improvements
will complement this effort.
Cost: $33,000 Phase I - $23,000 - 1980-81
Phase II- $10,000 - 1981-82
Total Cost $33,000
4) Project Title: Third Avenue Improvement between
"F" and "G" Streets
Location: Third Avenue between "F" and "G"
Streets
Description: The improvement of Third Avenue
includes the following.
a) Widenin-j of Street
b) Removal and replacement of curbs and gutters
c) Installation of
1. Street furniture
2. Decorative lighting
3. Decorative sidewalk
4. Landscaping
u) Modification of
1. Drainage inlets
2. Dr.) inag ~ structures
e) Resurfacing of tho intersecting streets, etc.
J~stificution: 'l'h~ project is part of tile City's
overall plan to redevelop and revitalize the
downtowI% business area. This project is included
in the City's economic development section of the
Community Development Block Grant Program. It
will be designed to complement improvements
already installed on Third Avenue, "E" to "F".
Cost: $1,000,000 Phase I - $250,000 - 1980-81
Phase I.I -~-$150,000 - 1981-82
Total Cost - $1,000,000
5) Project Title: Neighborhood Center Design and
Construction
Location: An undetermined location in the
Feaster, Mueller, or Vista Square Area
Description: This project entails the
development, in three phases, of a neighborhood
center in one of the above mentioned
neighborhoods.
Phase I - A study to determine the need, location,
size and services of the center.
Phase ii -Architectural and engineering drawings
and designs. An architectural firm
will be employed to do the drawings in
conjunction with City staff and
citizen input.
Phase IIi - Construction of the center.
Justification: This project is funded by
Com~.~unity Development Block Grants and is included
in the three-year program approved by the Council.
The oro]ect was requested by Mueller NSA citizen
~roups, and is the second p~]ase of the three-year
proj ec t.
Cost: $250,000 Phase I $ 5,000 1979-80
Phase I1 20,000 1980-81
Phase III 225,000 1981-82
Total Cost- $250,000
III. ENGINEERING
1) Project Title: Telegraph Canyon Flood Control
Channel Participation (Army Corps Project)
Location: Telegraph Canyon Creek from $00' East
of Fourth] Avenue to San Diego Bay
Description: Channel improvements consist of an
inlet structure upstream of Fourth Avenue,
approximately 1 mile of rectangular concrete
channel between Fourth Avenue and Interstate 5,
approximately 0.4 mile of trapezoidal earth bottom
channel from Interstate 5 to San Diego Bay, and
new bridge crossings at Broadway, Fifth Avenue and
Fourth Avenue.
Justification: The Telegraph Canyon Creek Project
i~ within an area which has been declared (winter
of 1977-78) a "National Disaster Area."
Completion of this project '~ill eliminate flooding
hazards and provide adequate drainage for upstream
land development. The U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers has undertaken this joint federal,
state, county and city project. The City's share
is estimated to be approximately $300,000.
Cost: $300,000
2) Project Title: Otay Valley Road Trunk Sewer
Modification at Melrose Avenue and Palm Avenue
Locatio~: Otay Valley Road and Melrose
Avenue/Otay Valley Road and Palm Ave~]ue
Description: The subject project includes
modification of manholes at Melrose Avenue and
Palm Avel%ue, removal and replacement of sewer main
on ~,lelrose Avenue, a~ld connection of trunk sewer
main on Otay Valley Road and Palm Avenue.
Justification: The sewer modification will
provide a relief to the overloaded segment of
trunk sewer located on Melrose Avenue and across
Rancho Rios Subdivision to Rios Avenue
approximately 650' south of Otay Valley Road.
Cost: $13,000
3) Project Title: ~ourtil Avenue Resur~acin~, "F"
Street to "G" Street a~%d "H" Street to "L" Street
Location: Fourth Avenue, "F" Street to "G" Street
and "H" Street to "L" Street
Description: The construction of a 1-1/2" A.C.
pavement overlay on Fourth Avenue from "F" Street
to "G" Street and from "H" Street to "L" Street
Justification: Resurfacing of Fourth Avenue will
prevent pavement failure as predicted and
determined by "Road Rater" inspection.
Cost: $167,000
Project Title: Fourth Avenue Street Lighting from
"F" Street to "G" Street
Location: Fourth Avenue, "F" Street to "G" Street
Description: Install street safety lighting
system including lighting standards, conduit,
conductors, ballasts and lighting fixtures.
Justification: Installation of safety lighting
will promote the safe movement of traffic.
Ligntiag insuallations must be done prior to or
concurrent with the undergrounding of utilities
along this road segment. Other%~ise, undergrounded
area would be without street lights.
Cost: $33,000
5) Project Title: Bonita Road Street Lighting - from
Willow Street to Otay Lakes Road
Location: Bonita Road -Willow Street to 0ray
Lakes Road
Description: Installation of street safety
lighting system including standards, conduit and
luminaires.
Justification: Lighting installation must be done
prior to or concurrent %~ith utility undergrounding
aloIlg this road seglaent. Otherwise, undergrounded
ar~a would be without street lights, which would
create a safety hazard.
Cost: $64,000
6) £~roject Title: C~nversiol] of street lights
[4ercury Vapor to High Pressure Sodium Vapor -
Co~tinuinj Prog ra~
Locatioi%: 'Fo be determined
Description: Convert existing 400 watt
watt mercury vapor lamps to 250 watt
high pressure sodium vapor lamps.
The %{ork involves installation of new luminaires.
Justification: A three-year program is set up to
co~%vert all 400 watt mercury vapor
la~ps to 250 watt high pressure
sodium vapor lamps. There are
approximately 345 400-watt lamps.
During the last two years of the program,
221 400-watt mercury vapor lamps have been
converted. This year, it is proposed to complete
conversion of the remaining 124 400-watt lamps-
This is the third
year of the program. The conversion of the street
lights will provide a reduction in energy cost of
approximately 25% and increase the illumination by
approximately 50%.
Cost: $ 20,000
7) Project Title: "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard
Traffic Signal Modification
Location: "L" Street/Industrial Boulevard
Description: Modify existing traffic signal
syste~.~ to provide for westbound left turn phasing.
Justification: Heavy westbound left turn movement
warra[~5s separate phasing. It was not provided
wi%eh si,]hal was installed due to necessity to
eliminate existing raised curb median and relocate
free;~av ~]irectional sign and railroad crossing
gates. (MTDB will be relocating gates and signal
standard/controller on SE corner at no cost to
City of Chula Vista.)
Cost: $13,00(]
8) Project Title: Traffic Signal Installation
Locatio~: "E" Street and Woodlawn Avenue
Descripuion: Installatio~ of a 5-phase fully
actuated traffic signal system.
Justification: This intersectiol] satisfies the
accident warrant for traffic signal installation.
Cost: $53,000
9) Project Title: Country Club Area - Replacement
and/or lining of existing sewers Study
Location: Country Club Area
Description: Consultant to perform a study of
problem sewer lines in the Country Club Area to
explore various methods of rectifying the problem
and recommend a solution.
Justification: The existing sewer lines in the
Country Club area has continuous maintenance
proble~ns and expense. The proposal is to retain a
consultant for a comprehensive study to determine
an expedient solution to the problem areas.
Cost: $10,000
~oject Title: Palomar Street Widening
In~ial Boulevard to Bay Boulev~
Locatio~ Palomar Street - Ind~u~trial Boulevard
to Bay BoXO~levard
Description: ~q[den exi~s~ing roadway to provide
for four lanes o'~..%r?~ic. Work to include
construction of culqis and gutters, sidewalks,
street lig~.~/p~em~base, grading, etc.
justifi~.a~i~n: The proje~q, will bring this
portiojw/of Palomar Street up-~o the ultimate
~ds in both improvement~right-°f-way'
X/The project is justified in view of~,~on, struction
of the Tijuana Trolly Station by MTDB~ the near
future.
Cost: $167,000
Project Title: Bonita Road - Improvements to
reduce traffic safety hazards at willow Street and
bray Lakes Road.
Location: Bonita Road at willow Street and Otay
Lakas Road
Description: Improvetnents, such as removal of
concrete tub signal bas~s, additional vehicle
signals and pedestrian signals at Bonita
Road/Willow Street and Bonita Road/Otay Lakes
Ro ad .
Justification:
a) Concrete tubs have been proven to be a City
liability in accidents involving vehicles
colliding %;ith same.
b) Significant increases in vehicles and
pedestrians using these intersections since
their construction in 19~9 makes it necessary
to modify some of the equipment by
replacement and/or relocation.
Cost: $32,000
11) ?roject Title: East "L" Street Reconstruction and
Melrose/East "L" Street Traffic Signal
b) Location: East "L" Street and Melrose Avenue
Description: Traffic signal at East "L"
Street and Melrose Avenue - Install 5-phase
fully actuated traffic signal system at East
"L" Street and Melrose Avenue.
Justification: The traffic signal does not
currently meet signal installation warrants
but was recommended by the Safety Commission
to create gaps in eastbound traffic.
Cost: $69,000
East
a) Locasio~]: /"L" Street between Nacion Avenue
and Melrose Avenue
Description:
Recons%ruction of East "L" Street between
Nacion Avenue and Melrose Avenue to modify
substandard vertical curve. Work includes
relnovin~ and replacing curbs, gutters,
sidewalk, asphalt concrete with base,
driveways, etc.
.Justification: ~4odification of the
substandard vertical curve would remedy the
hazardous situation that exists due to
inadequate stopping sight distance.
Cost: $470,000
12) Project Title: Walnut Avenue Sewer - Replacement
of existing concrete sewer along SD&AE Railroad
bet%~cen "G" and "J" Streets
Location: Between "G" Street and "J" Street along
SD&AE Railroad Right of Way
Description: Construct new sewer main with new
manholes.
Justification: Existing concrete sewer line is
deteriorating and is in need of replacement. This
se~er li~e is between 30 and 40 years old.
Cost: $330,000
14) ~oject Title: Country Club Area - Installation,,
o f'~onduit/Conductors for Street Lig~//
Locatio~':~C~ountry Club Area //
Description: ~tnstall new condu~ and conductors
for 22 street l~'h~s in C~'~ Club area.
Justification: Syst~m>~.s more than 50 years old.
Muca of the condu, j~has d'~teriorated and some of
ti~e street li~li~t~s are not o~er.~ble. Voltage drop
cauSe~Cos..~ $83,000ights to operate c~i~ly~
13) Project Title: Bicycle Route Improvements
Location: Various streets within the City which
are shown on the Bike Route Element of the General
Plan
Description: The proposal is for a study to
determine the actual need of bike routes within
the City.
Justification: The Bicycle Route Element of the
General Plan has been approved by the City
Council. LTF monies are available to implement
the sl~e Route Element. The ~rs~ step ~n
implementation is to conduct a comprehensive study
to dete~mine the actual nee~'] of bike routes.
Cost: $35,000
PARKS AND RECREATION
1) Project Title: Sweetwater Regional Park -
Construction of Ballfields
Location: Sweetwater Regional Park
Description: Construct a ballfield complex in
Sweetwater Regional Park. Complex to consist of
four practice fields and one lighted playing
field; parking lot and appropriate park
furnishings and paving.
Justification: In response to an acute shortage
of ballfields in the Chula Vista area, the City of
Chula Vista and San Diego County have agreed to
jointly construct this ballfield facility. The
County %;ill furnish the land and provide funding
of $100,000. The City will be responsible for
construction and maintenance of the facility, and
provide $150,000 for construction.
Cost: $250,000
2) Project Title: Rienstra Sports Complex Renovation
Location: Rienstra Sports Complex, 1500 Max
Ay ~-nue
Description: Pave the parking lot; build new
re~troom in another location.
Justification: This is a continuation of
~enov-~.tion ?utho~ized bV FY1979-90 CIP whereby the
east bank of the facility is ~raded, compacted and
landscaped to prevent erosion. The parking lot
needs paving to provide parking order, prevent
erosion and damage to automobiles. The present
restrooms are often flooded and requires
repiacel~lent to meet health standards.
Cost: $30,000
3) Project Title: Park ;~ay Gym Interior Renovation
Location: Park Way Gymnasium, 385 Park Way
Descriptiol~: The ~ollo~¢i~g items of work are
required to renovage the gymnasium/pool facility:
Replace all lockers in both the men's and
wo~aen's dressin] areas with coin operated
lockers; rubber matting in weight room;
replace basketball backboard frames; replace
all ~xterior doors and windows throughout the
facility; patch plaster walls and ceilings as
needed; apply inorganic glaze to walls and
ceilings of the one-story wing on east side
of gymnasium and the men's and women's
toilets in the foyer; install security
lighting in front of the~gymnasium, pool,
parking lot and Fear of gymnasium; purchase
new bleachers; miscellaneous plumbing repair,
floor and ceiling tile replacement and
lighting improvements.
Justification: Tt~e Park Way Gymnasium and
Swimming Pool Center consists of a large
regulation size gymnasium with dressing
facilities, toilet areas, administrative space and
an outdoor swimming pool. The facility is over 22
years old and needs to be renovated in or~er to
prolong its life and to improve the usefulness of
the c~nter. The interior renovation of the center
is 131anned to coincide with the construction of a
multipurpose activity center adjacent to the
gymnasium/pool complex. This activity center is
scheduled ~or completion in December 1980. The
renovated gymnasium/pool center, in conjunction
with the ne%~ multipurpose center, will provide an
effective, efficient facility in a central City
locatiou to serve a wide range of recreation needs
for all age groups.
Cost: $72,000
~roiect T~tle: Security Residents Proqram
Location: General Roca; Loma Verde and Rohr Parks
Description: Provide mobile home pads, fencing
and utilities
Justification: Council approved t~]e test
in,,{tallation of a security resident in Greg Rogers
Park during FY1979-80. Staff recommended that the
tes~ [nstall;~tion be followed by the installation
of three ,~dditio~]al during FY1980-81.
Cost: $11,000
5) Project Title: Golf Course Jogging and Equestrian
Trail
Location: Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course
Description: The work includes rerouting of the
existing trail at various locations, installing and
repairing fence, installing decomposed granite trail
to join asphalt trail, rerouting drain from "Jack-
in-the-Box," grading, landscaping, removing and
trimming small trees, installing horse crossing/joggers
signs, etc.
Justification: The Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course,
Rohr Park and the County park areas represent a
valuable recreational resource to the residents of
Chula Vista and the Bonita/Sunnyside area. These
areas are subject to high use by a variety of
individuals and groups with special interests. It
appears that usage of these areas will increase
greatly in the future. As the usage increases, the
probability of interference among the variety of users
of this unique area will increase. Certain unsafe
conditions will be aggravated unless a long-range plan
is developed and positive action is taken to reduce
the potential hazards, while optimizing the use of
the facilities.
Cost: $20,000
IV. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I) Project Title: Construct Bus Maintenance Facility
Location: Undetermined (in Chula Vista area)
Description: Construct Bus ~laintenance Facility.
Justification: This facility is needed in order
to maintain and repair the CVT fleet of buses
(estimated to total 19 in FY1984 and Handytrans
vans currently numbering 7).
Construction of a new South Bay facility will be
analyzed within the next five months by a
consultant along with two other alternatives:
a. Expand t~e City's existing maintenance yard
to handle transit maintenance activities.
b. Continue contract bus maintenance work.
Cost: $424,000
2) Bus Stop Improvements - Six Year Program
Location: Throughout CVT Service Area
Description: Purchase and installation of 20-30
bus benches per year, 2-3 bus shelters (and
conc[-ete pads) pe~' year, 5-6 bus schedule holders
per year, and miscellaneous bus stop improvements
(e.J . Pus turnouts, road improvements, etc.) as
n3ede,'] in tile next six years.
Justification: Buses and si~elters needed for CVT
pass, angers, especially the elderly and
hai~dica~ped, to %~aia for buses; bus schedule
holders i~eeded to provide passengers with CVT
route and schedule information; bus turnouts and
ot'uer roadway improvements, etc. needed for more
co~]veni~nt CVT service.
Cost: $26,000
3) ?ro~eCt Title: Public Work~ Center - Additio~ and
Alteration
Location%: [~ublic '~'$orks Cent.~r, 707 "F" Street
D~.~sc r ipt ion:
a) Construct a 20' x 37' addition to the south
side of the automotive building to house the
welding shop.
b) Remodel the existing welding shop, staff
lounge, and parts storage for purchasing
warehouse and ne%; staff lounge.
Justification: Change scope and responsibility
~or automotive parts control and ordering from
central garage to purchasing. Requires expanded
parts storage space in the automotive building.
Cost: $39,000
4) Project Title: Automated Fueling
Location: Public Works Yard, Police Facility and
Golf Course
Description: Install automated fueling system at
Public Works Yard island and Golf Course, install
12,000 gallons capacity tank for unleaded fuel at
Public Works Yard, install master switch to open
gate at Police facility, etc.
Justification: There are four subordinate reasons for
the shift to automated control fueling:
1. A more accurate maintenance accounting and
information system and departmental billing system.
2. Flexibility in purchasing truck and trailer lots
of fuel.
3. Greater fuel reserves for emergencies.
4. No clerical time spent by vehicle drivers in the
fueling operation.
Cost: $40,000