Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1984/08/08 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 8, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 13, 1984 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of Final EIR-84-6, Chula Vista Woods/Gardner Investment Properties 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. GPA-84-4, Consideration to redesignate 10 acres east of Greg Rogers Park from Parks and Public Open Space to Medium Density Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre) - Stafford Gardner Development b. PCZ-84-I, Consideration to rezone 20 acres east of Greg Rogers Park from R-1-H to R-l-P-6 c. PCS-84-13, Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, C. V. Tract 84-13 d. P-84-14, Consideration of precise plan for Chula Vista Woods subdivision with 110 manufactured homes 3. Consideration of Final EIR-84-4, Otay Small Electric Generating Plant, Otay Landfill - Central Plants, Inc. (Continued) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-84-2, Request to construct a small electric generating plant on the northeast corner of the Otay Landfill Property - Central Plants, Inc. (Continued) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-7, San Diego Country Club Villas 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for extension of conditional use permit, PCC-82-3, for temporary classrooms, 470 'L' Street - Church of Christ (Continued) 7. Consideration of appeal for on-premise sign - Vista Hill Hospital (Continued) DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of August 22, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 1984 1. Consideration of Final EIR-84-6, Chula Vista Woods/Gardner Investment Properties 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. GPA-84-4, Consideration to redesi~nate 10 acres east of Greg Rogers Park from Parks and Public Ope. Space to Medium Density Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre) - Stafford Gardner Development b. PCZ-84-I, Consideration to rezone 20 acres east of Greg Rogers Park from R-1-H to R-l-P-6 c. PCS-84-13, Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Woods, C. V. Tract 84-13 d. P-84-14, Consideration of precise plan for Chula Vista Woods subdivision with 110 manufactured homes A. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on EIR-84-6 (Chula Vista Woods Subdivision) after taking written and oral testimony relative to the adequacy of the EIR. The closing of the hearing marked the end of the required public review period. 2. The Planning Commission scheduled review of the Final EIR for the regular meeting of August 8, 1984. 3. A letter has been received from Mooney-Lettieri and Associates, the consultant hired by the City to prepare the EIR, indicating a need for additional time to respond to numerous comments received at the July 25, 1984 hearing. B. RECOMMENDATION Continue consideration of Final EIR-84-6, C. V. Woods Subdivision, to the regular Planning Commission hearing of August 22, 1984. Agenda item 2a, b, c, & d, listed for public hearing, was scheduled for August 8, 1984, however, based on the required continuation of EIR-84-6, it is necessary to continue the public hearings on the above mentioned items to August 22, 1984. Mooney-Lettieri & Associates, Inc. July 30, 1984 Duane Bazzel City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista 92010 Subject: Chula Vista Woods Dear Mr. Bazzel, As we discussed last week, our firm will be unable to complete the Final EIR (FEIR) and Candidate Findings by August 1st in order to make the August 8th Planning Commission. The comments submitted at the July 25th public hearing necessitate responses which involve additional research. In addition, we will need to coordinate with the City on ~the content of the responses and the Findings prior to submittal of the final FEIR copies. With these constraints in mind, we request that the Planning Commission date be continued to August 22nd. Based on the August 22nd date, we would propose to submit a screencheck copy of the Final FEIR and Candidate Findings on August 10th for your review and comment. The multiple copies of the FEIR would be submitted to your department on August 15th. We, of course, intend to coordinate closely with you in the next week as we pepare our response to comments and Findings. with respect to the Findings, we will work to intergrate your over-riding findings statements into the document. If you have any questions or corrections regarding the approach outlined above, feel free to call me or Nancy Rollman at 578-8964. Sincerely, M. Bruce Mclntyre ,.- .... Vice President ~¥ .... MBM/op AUG 0 1 PLANNING DEPA I ENI CHULA VISTA, OAUFORNIA Urban/Regional Planning · Environrnehtal Analysis · Project Management · 9925-C Businesspark Avenue, San Diego, CA 92131 · (619) 578-8964 City Planning commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 8, 1984 Page 2 3. Consideration of Final EIR-84-4, Otay Electrical Generatin9 Plant 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-84-2, Request to construct a small electrical generating plant on the northeast corner of the Otay Landfill Property - Central PlanLs, Inc. (Continued) A. BACKGROUND 1. On June 13, 1984 the Planning Commission decided to continue consideration of the final EIR-84-4 and the public hearing for conditional use permit PCC-84-2 until the project proponent obtains an "authority to construct" permit from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District or for a maximum period of 60 days. 2. The project proponent, Central Plants, Inc., have requested that since the APCD permit will not be obtained until sometime in early September that the Planning Commission consider extending the review date for the project. B. RECOMMENDATION Continue review of final EIR-84-4 and conditional use permit PCC-84-2 until the regular meeting of September 26, 1984. 6055 East Washington Boulevard Central Plants, Inc. Suite 830 213/725 1139 Commerce, CFi 90040 July 19, 1984 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue chula Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Duane E. Bazzel Dear Mr. Bazzel: Confirming our telephone conversation today, we are requesting that the hearing for the Otay Landfill be re-scheduled for the first week in September. You have agreed to represent PLES & to request a continuance from the Chula Vista Planning Commission. PLease inform us of their decision. Sincerely, Steve R. Glisson Project Administrator SRG: deb cc: L. Toth E. Abrahamy H. sidhu RECEIVED JUL g3 1984 I.TA, C.\LIFOR llA o subs;d,ary of Pociflc Ugh§n9 CorpomlJon City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 8, 1984 Page 3 .5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-7, San Diego Country Club Vi~ las A. BACKGROUND 1. An Initial Study of possible environmental effects was concluded on January 31, 1984. At that time, a decision was made by the Environmental Review Coordinator to require that a focused EIR be prepared on the proposed project. A public meeting was held on March 5, 1984, by the ERC to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR. 2. The EIR was then prepared under an agreement with RBR & Associates, the project proponent, and the Environmental Review Coordinator. The ERC issued the Draft EIR for review on June 15, 1984 (Draft EIR attached). 3. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment, rezoning, prezoning, annexation, precise plan, and tentative subdivision map. 4. Various written comments have been received and they are attached to this report for your information. The document is being processed through the State Clearinghouse; however, no comments have been forwarded to the City. If comments are received prior to the hearing, they will be available at the meeting. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and take testimony relative to the adequacy of the EIR. It is anticipated that a response to written and verbal comments will have to be prepared; therefore, the hearing should be closed and consideration of the final EIR set for August 22, 1984, when the proposed General Plan Amendments, prezoning, and rezoning will be heard. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The proposed project involves the following discretionary acts: (1) General Plan Amendment from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential" (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre); (2) prezoning of 4 acres from S-90-20 (County "Holding Area Use") to R-3-P-14 (14 du's per acre maximum); (3) rezoning of 2 acres from R-1 to R-3-P-14; (4) precise plan approval; (5) annexation to the City of Chula Vista; and (5) tentative subUivision map approval for 80 condominium units. 2. The project will consist of the development of 80 condominium units to be contained in l0 two-story residential structures. Parking for 180 cars is provided on-site, 80 of which will be garages. City Planning commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 8, 1984 Page 4 D. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Soils On-site soil conditions have low to moderate expansive characteristics. Stable construction will be ensured through the implementation of recommendations of a qualified soils and foundation engineer. No significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Drainage At previous public meetings it was suggested that increased run-off could incrementally contribute to existing occasional flooding at Naples Street and Tobias Drive. A grading plan which preserves basic existing drainage patterns and provides for the discharge of runoff at acceptable velocities to prevent erosion, ana which diverts on-site runoff to the northwest, away from Naples Street, will be required to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. 3. Air quality LocalizeU, short-term, air quality impacts will be realized during the construction/grading phase of the project. Incremental, although not significant, effects on air pollution in the regional air basin will occur with project implementation. Strict adherence to standard dust-control techniques (i.e., watering down graded and transport areas) will reduce local impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. Noise Noise impacts associated with development of the project site are short term and not considered significant. Construction activities shall be limited to daylight hours and construction-related traffic shall be instructed to use Naples Street as access to the site. No other significant noise impacts are anticipated and, therefore, no additional mitigation will be required. The attached letter from the County raises several acoustical issues which are being evaluated by RBR & Associates. 5. Land use/open space The proposed lan~ use (80 medium density residential units) will not be incompatible with the adjacent single family residential areas. Review of the precise plan will reduce physical land use impacts to below a level of significance. Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map, the developer shall pay in-lieu park development and acquisition fees which will mitigate the project's incremental contribution to the public parkland requirements. 6. Aesthetics Potential view blockage from existing residents to the east can be partially reduced by designing view corridors. Design features aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of view blockage shall be implemented through the City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for )leering of August 8, 1984 precise plan review process. The previous and proposed removal of numerous mature trees will necessitate their replacement with specimen size trees (i.e., 24-inch box or greater in size). Review of the precise plan by the Design Review Committee and the City's Landscape Architect will reduce aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance. 7. Transportation/access The location of access to the site shall adhere to adequate horizontal and vertical alignment design standards and be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Proper site distance shall be assured through review and approval of the precise plan by the Design Review Committee. Precise plan review shall reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. 8. Public facilities No significant impacts have been identified which are associated with the provision of water, sewer, police or fire protection services to the site. The nearest elementary school, Castle Park Elementary School, and junior high school, Hilltop Junior High School, are currently operating above capacity, al though not all schools within the districts are operating over capacity. Both school districts indicate that no further mitigation measures will be required beyond the payment of required fees. E. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 1. On July 30, 1984, the Resource Conservation Commission recommended · ~at the EIR be certified as being prepared in accordance with CEQA. 2. A'letter has been received from the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. A response .to this letter will be contained in the final EIR (letter attached) 3. A letter has been received from the Montgomery Fire Protection District which indicates that the "fire protection" section of the EIR is accurate (letter attached). 4. A letter has been received from Mrs. Brooke Lawrence, 1042 Corte Maria Avenue, Chula Vista. A response to this letter will be contained in the final EIR (letter attached). WPC 1174P COUNTY OF SAN DmEGO Please send r.ply to offic. ~hecked: 334 Via Vera Cruz [] 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B [] WALTER C. LADWIG, DIRECTOR [] San Marcos, CA 92069-2638 San Diego, CA 92123-1666 5201 Ruffi~ Road, Suite B (619) 565-3072 San Diego. CA 92123-1666 (619) 7414236 (619} 565.3661 July 19, 1984 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB VISTAS, ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS The Environmental Planning Section has completed its review of the Draft EIR for the San Diego Country Club Vistas and determined it to be incomplete for the following reasons: 1. Evaluation of traffic noise levels (Appendix D, Noise Analysis) is not correct. Expected Ldn at $0 feet from the road centerline might significantly exceed the noise levels shown in the EIR (65.3 db instead of 61.6 db). There are no traffic flow predictions for Naples Street to the year 2000, and there are no corresponding acoustical calculations addressing future noise levels in the area. 2. There are no acoustical evaluation~of noise attenuation effects of the proposed five foot stucco wall. Therefore no conclusion can be made about the adequacy of the proposed noise mitigation measures, in particular, in respect to the upper floor units. 3. Based on the above we can conclude that the EIR statement (P.35) that "Noise levels reaching the residential units would be well below the 65 dba limit established by the City of Chula Vista and the 60 dbA requirement of Title 25 of the Califonia Administrative Code" is not correct. of the jacuzzi and associated activities after 10:00 p.m. may result in Ge impacts th surrounding land users. ~,ECEI~.~ .~' A~sher,~C~i e f~ uY_ - , ~ · JUL 2 ? Regulatory P1 ann tng PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA REA:AS:sh {Log No: 8~18-17) 3~1 ()NJ ()~tl) %! RLil] i Mi R(;I N('¥: 422-1101 July 110,1984 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Enviromental Review Coordinator Planning Department, City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 Ref: Draft EIR - San Diego Country Club Subj: Impact on Montgomery Fire Protection District Sir: On behalf of the Montgomery Fire Protection District, I have reviewed the Draft EIR concerning the annexation and development of approximately four (4) acres of Unincorporated land, currently part of the San Diego Country Club. It is the opinion of this department that section 3.8.4, "Fire Protection", as included in the Draft EIR is accurate. The Montgomery Fire Protection District does not envision any sSgnificant impact on the fire district as the result of annexation of the property to the City and subsequent developement. Should you have any question(s), please feel free to contact me at 422-1104. Respectfully, P. L~ndows~i, Fire ie RECEIVED PL/la .i[J[. 1 i 1984 10~2 Corte Maria Chula Vista, Ca. 92011 July 12, 198~ Environmental Review Coordinator R E C E ~.V 5 D City of Chula Vista BY P. O. Box 1987 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Re: EIR 87-7 ,i~]L'~.7 Dear Sir: ~ [~t~. ~~ I am a homeowner who will be affected ad~~'%h~ ~PrO'~ posed project located at the southeast corner of the San Diego Country Club. The environmental i~npact report, i~ my opinion, fails to explore ~nd explain fully noise pollution and ch-~Se in ~ir 6_uality an~ dust. Page 3. Air Quality Impact On page ~, the report states, '~egional air Quality Strategy could be utilized to reduce i~cremental increase in regional air pollutants". The addition of 80 c0adominium units with their occupants animals will increase the pollutants in the air in the sur- rounding ~re~. The addition of the occupants' automobiles will create air pollution also. It is hotel the report states 'could be utilized' as to Regional ~ir Quality Strategy. The wor~ 'could' makes me belieVe that Regional ~ir Quali'~y Strategy, whatever that is, most probably will not be employed. Page %. Noise Impact Page ~, paragraph 1, states that significant noise inc,-eases will not be experienced. There is ac reason for arriving at that conclusion. '~t is the basis for that sentence? Obviously, the population of 80 condominiumm will cause noise in the area continually. The report concedes there will be noise during the construction period, but does not look that · Was the drainage problem/effect researched thoroughly? Very truly yours, (A~S.) Brooke Lawrence City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 8, 1984 Page 6 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (continued) Request for extension of conditional use permit, PCC-82-3 for temporary classrooms 47o "L" Street - Churcl) of Christ A. BACKGROUND lhis item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of 7-11-84 with the Planning Department directed to research and forward to the Planning Commission the original staff report, fineings, and conditions of approval. B. RECO~IMENDATION Adopt a motion approving a request for an ll-month extension to July 8, 1985, subject to the following: 1. The temporary buildings shall be removed by July 8, 1985, or sooner if the new addition is completed prior to that date. 2. The noise study required per IS-82-3 shall be expanded to evaluate the playground activity to determine the amount of noise generated by the children and recommendations for remedies to reduce noise impacts on adjacent residents is so warranted in the opinion of the City Planning Director. 3. School schedules shall be evaluated and presented to the City Planning Director to determine if certain outdoor activities can be accommodated indoors. 4. The south facing door of the temporary building shall remain closed and used for emergency exiting only. C. DISCUSSION The following represents the sequence of events, conditions, and processes for the Church of Christ located at 470 "L" Street. 1. The church site of 1.7 acres was approved by the County Planning Commission in 1969. 2. In 1978, the County approved an amendment to the project authorizing a lO0-student elementary school subject to: a. Striping the parking lot to accommodate the necessary play area (approximately lO0'xlgO'). b. Installing landscaping and fencing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 8, 1984 Page 7 c. Precluding loud speakers or amplification systems audible beyond the property boundaries. 3. In May of 1981, the property was annexed to the City of Chula Vista. 4. In August of 1981, the church received authorization from the City Planning Commission to: a. increase the school size from 100 students to 175, b. increase the church parking area to add parking, c. locate two temporary classrooms on-site near "L" Street for a period of three years. 5. In May of 1982, the church received approval from the Zoning Administrator to relocate the temporary classrooms near the southeast corner of the property per the original time sci~edule. It should be noted that in each of the previous hearings before the County Planning Commission and the City Planning Commission, the adjacent property owners were notified. The original County notice identified the school as an elementary school rather ti)an a Sunday school. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, questions were raised by residents and the Planning Commission concerning noticing, findings, and conditions. Attached is.a letter from John Leppert, representing the church, responding to residents' questions. In addition, the Planning Department's 1981 staff report, findings and conditions are attached for your review. D. CONCLUSION 1. It appears to staff that residents have been properly notified by both the City and County when the various hearings have been conducted, although the full impacts may not have been realized at that time. 2. The findings and environmental review m~de in the City's 1982 approval of expansion were structured more to the permanent building and the expanded parking geared to relieve an existing problem. Less emphasis was placed on the issue of the temporary building and the increased school capacity (going from 100 students to 175). 3. The applicant is now proposing to reduce the time frame (from 14 months to ll months) for removal of the school, during which time the noise study required of the permanent building would be expanded to include the outside play area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Heeting of August 8, 1984 Page 8 4. Given the scheduling of the number of children playing outside during any one part of the day, it is not possible to accurately assess the impact that changing from a lO0-student capacity school to a 175-student capacity creates on adjacent residents. 5. The location of the play within the paved parking area has been clearly establishe(~ since 1978. The play area appears to be the most annoying feature to the adjacent residents and only additional noise studies (with attenuation solutions) or a relocation of the activities is likely to resolve the issue. 6. Retaining the temporary classrooms in their present location subject to the conditions recommended by staff appears to be the most logical course of action at this time. WPC l170P LEPPERT ENGINEERING CORPORATZON P.O. Box 24022, 5an Diego, Ca 92124 <619) 562-8814 29205729 July 26, 1984 RECEi,V. ED Ny Job #o.: CV 1.01-01.84 ,r. K,nn,th Principei Pi,nn,r JUL 2 ? Planning D~perteent C~y of Ghu~a V~s~a PLANNING D ARTMENT Chui, Vist=, CA 92010 CHU V STA, CALIFORNIA RE: PCC-82o3 Request for an time extension of a CUP Uae of Portable Classroom facilities "L" 5treat Church of Christ Dear Ken: On July 11, 1984, the Planning Coxatenion conducted a public hearing on the above referenced pro]act. At this hearing, tseteeony was given by a few neighboring residents who were opposed to the pro]act. Although much of the teeteaony presented by the neighbors was not relevant to the issue being considered by the Coeeieeion, several lacuna were presented by the neighbors in support of their opposition which were not coepletsly true nor accurate. Consequently, the Applicant would like to respond to these issues by providing you, your staff, and the Coeeiaeion with sore accurate information regarding the actual operation of the school. Please find attached enclosure (1) which responds to four of the issues presented by the those neighbors who have opposed the pro3ect. The church and the school have always strived to xaintain a positive relationship with its neighbors. In an effort to continue with this cooperative spirit, the Applicant ia willing to offer to do the following items such that any impact the school eight have towards its neighbors eight be einieized: 1) to reduce the amount of ties requested to use the teeporary building froe 14 xonthe to 11 eonthe which would revise the expiration date to July 15th, 1985. 2) to expand the scope of the presently required noise study to include an evaluation of the playground activity. This study, which would be conducted after school began in Septeeber, would help to identify if the noise generated by the play activity was excessive. Should any play activity be detereined tO exceed allowable limits, corrective measures could be incorporated into the requireeente of the building permit for the permanent building. Letter to Hr, Kenneth Lee PCC-82-3 July 26, 1984 page 2 $) to evaluate both the pant and the proposed daily echool schedule to detereine 1[ any activities previously conducted outelde could reasonably be per[oread indoors. 4) to reiterate the present position o[ the school that it doan not intend to pursue expansion o[ the echool beyond the level o[ the 8th grade at this particular location. Should you have any queetione regarding any o[ the above proposals, or with nny o[ the in[oreation contained in enclosure (1), pleaee teal tree to contact ee at ~62-8814. --President, Agent [or the Appicant encloeure cc, W. L. Fletcher 5, J. Harris the Elders at the L 3treat Church o[ Chriet Enclosure ¢1) PCC-82-3 ~eauea raised at Planning Coeeiseion Hearing July 11, 1984 July 26, 1984, Page 1 Issue: The children attending the school live outside the area and are "bussed-in" to attend the school. There is only one student attending the school who lives in the immediate neighborhood on Waatby Street. Consequently, the school does not provide a service to the local coesunity. Response: Reviewing the enrollment records £or the past year, the total student population consisted of 174 students. Of this total. 69 students lived in the City of Chula Vista. An additional 57 students who attended the school were residents of neighboring South Bay coeaunitias, cities southerly of and including Hational City. Consequently, 126 students or over 72X of the student population were froe the lasediate area! Truly, this private school does neet the needs of the local coesunity. It should also be pointed out that 5 students who were residents of Weetby Street attended the school last year, a somt coasendable achlevaaent for a private school. Issue: The playground activity with all those students playing outside all the tixe generates an unacceptable level of noise to the ad]scent neighbors on ~eatby Street. Response: The impression given at the hearing was that the entire student body was playing outside all day long creating a totally unacceptable level of noise. The truth of the setter is that. except for three short periods in the day, very few children are playing outside at any one tixe. Reviewing last year's schedule, the following student load in the play area at any one tixe ia as follows: time period no. of students 3 dnys/wk every day 8:15-8:45 10-25 X 8145-9:00 134 sex. X 9:15-9:45 38 ~ 9:45-10:30 43 X 10:30-11:15 43 X 11:15-12:00 29 X 12:00-12:20 92 X 12:20-12:45 82 X 12:45-1:00 29 X 1:30-1:45 41 X 2:00-2:15 58 X 2:15-3:00 21 X Dismissal Frae the shove schedule, one can see that the number of students outside during the day is not excessive. In the morning hours, the students ars not even outside every day. Issue: The perimeter fence along the southerly boundary has several broken planks permitting children to pass through the fence and into the back yards of the adjoining neighbors' property. Response: Although the church was not aware that thio was a significant problem in the pamt0 it appreciates being informed about the problem. Stepm have been taken in the pest two weeks to repair all the broken planks in the fence. A permanent committee has boon appointed and charged with the responsibility to insure that tho integrity of the fence is maintained in good working order. Issue: When the church expanded their parking lot to their rear lot line, they altered tho drainage pattern causing flooding problems to tho back yards of the ad3oining neighbors. Response: Reviewing the grading plane for the neighbor's subdivision and topographical manuscripts of tho church property available from the County Operations Center, the plans indicate that the residental Iota were designed end constructed to drain from the beck to the front of the lots. When tho church added to their parking lot, they directed their runoff to go northerly and westerly toward8 the intersection of 5th and L Streets, away from the neighbors' property. Conmequently, any water accumulating in the rear of any of the neighborm' lots must be originating from a source other than from church property. City Planning Conmission ~a~ ~ Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1981 ~, PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-7~request for temporary classrooms and expansion of church facilities at 470 "L" Street - Church of Christ A. BACKGROUND 1. The Church of Christ, located at 470 "L" Street in the R-3-P-14 zone, seeks permission to use two portable buildings as temporary classroom space for a period of three years, during which time the existing church/school building is to be expanded. The proposed expansion, including additional parking, is also the subject of approval for the Planning Commission. 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-3, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on August 13, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant envi~nmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-82-3, together with the hllowing mitigating measu~s: (a) Parking lot lights shall be shielded to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas; (b) An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician prior to the addition of permanent classroom space and recommendations shall be incorporated into the p~ject prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion approving PCC-82-3 for the use of two portable classroom structures and expansion of the existing church located at 470 "L" Street, subject to the following conditions: a. A const~ction permit shall be required hr the removal of the existing driveway on the west side of the existing church structure upon application hr a building permit hr the first temporary struc- ture. b. Solid fencing, matching the existing fencing, shall be installed on the proper~ line between the proposed parking area and adjacent properties. Said fence shall be 6 feet high except within the front setback along Pifth Avenue where such ~nce shall be reduced to 3~ feet in height. c. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be su~itted for approval by the City within 60 days of the date of this approval. Installa- tion will be required concurrent with the construction of the parking lot. d. Supplemental landscaping shall be p~vided within the existing parking area, subject to the approval of the City Landscape Architect, as part of the building permit for the church expans~o . - .,~_ ,~ e. The ~wo portable classrooms shall be removed b~.July, 19-~, or sooner if the new addition is completed prior to that l~ City Planning Commission ~ Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1981 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Chula Vista High School South R-S-7 (County) Single family dwellings East R-3-P-14 Single family dwellings West R-1 Single family dwellings 2. Existing site characteristics This recently annexed project site consists of five parcels totalling 3.2 acres, located on the southeast corner of Fifth Avenue and "L" Street. The vacant parcel at the corner contains 9,000 sq. ft. and has 90 feet of frontage along "L" Street and lO0 feet along Fifth Avenue. The second and third parcels, each with an area of one-half acre, measure approximately 85' x 291' The second parcel is vacant, whereas the third parcel is developed with a single family dwelling and a detached garage wi th the rear half of the lot being vacant. The dwelling is occupied by church custodians. The fourth and largest parcel, upon which the church is located, has an area of 1.7 acres and measures approxi- mately 75' x 281'. (The difference in lot depth is the result of an additional lO feet being dedicated for street~purposes.) The "L" shaped, two story church structure is situated on the front half of the property with driveways on either side leading to the parking lot at the rear of the building. The building houses a church sanctuary with a seating capacity of 730, as well as offices and the elementary school (K through 6) classrooms. The school has a present enroll- ment oF lO0 students. The classrooms are also used for bible classes. The school hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. Bible classes are from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday evenings and on Sunday morning and evening. The fifth parcel measures 50' x 291' and is developed with a two family dwelling. The rear 131 feet is paved and used for church parking. There are 8 spaces located on the east side of the church, with the total area providing parking for approximately 98 vehicles. This is a ratio of one space for each 7.4 seats in the sanctuary, which is half the number of spaces required by the City of Chula Vista (one space per 3.5 seats). 2. Street improvements. All of the street improvements have been installed in front of the church and the adjacent parcel to the east. However, there is no sidewalk on "L" Street in front of the westerly three parcels and there are no street improvements along the Fifth Avenue frontage of the corner lot except for a portion of the street paving. 3. Proposed request] a. The applicant wishes to expand the existing church building by adding a two-story addition onto the north side at the west end of the building, resulting in a "U" shaped building. The first floor will be devoted to a fellowship hall with restrooms and kitchen facilities. The second story will be used for class- rooms. It is expected that the addition will be completed in three years, allowing the school to operate with a maximum of 175 students. City Planning Conmission ~ Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1981 b. Between now and the completion of the new building, the applicant wishes to use two portable structures (each measuring 24' x 60') as temporary classrooms for the three year period. Each building will have two classrooms with a seating capacity of 25 seats per classroom, for a total of 100 seats. The buildings will be located in the area now occupied by a detached garage located west of the main sanctuary. One building is to be installed in September, in time for the 1981-82 school year, and the other building installed one year later, in time for the 1982-83 school year. One of the classrooms in the existing building will be used in another capacity by the church so the school enrollment will not exceed 175 students. 4. Additional parking and other changes. The applicant intends to provide additional parking on the westerly three parcels for which a grading plan and street improvement plan have been submitted. Access will be provided from both Fifth Avenue and "L" Street. The existing driveway and curb cut on the west side of the church will be closed. A 6 ft. high chainlink fence will be provided for the playground area in the vicinity of the proposed church addition to create a temporary play area. The new parking area will be landscaped and a 6 ft. high wooden fence provided along the southerly property line to match the existing fence behind the church. Once the parking lot is completed, a total of 206 parking spaces will be provided, representing a ratio of one space for each 3.5 seats, thus meeting City require- ments. D. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed addition will match the architecture of the existing building. A covered walk with arched columns will be constructed within the interior portion of the "U" shaped building. The covered walk will enhance the general appearance of the building. The seating capacity of the sanctuary will remain at 730 seats and the additional parking will bring the total parking to city standards. The increase in the student enrollment from lO0 to 17~ students will not require additional parking and should not adversely affect the adjoining residential areas which will be screened by 6 foot high fencing and landscaping. In addition, a portion of the landscaped playground area will remain well separated from the adjoining residential area. 2. The use of temporary classroom structures during the construction of permament facilities provides the applicant with the ability to immediately expand the classroom capacity. In this instance, the buildings will be partially screened from the street by the existing structures and landscaping within the new parking area. In addition, they are located 90 feet from "L" Street. The portable units will be removed after the 1983-84 school year. 3. The Planning Department has been looking into the establishment of develop- ment standards for private schools. However, no recommendations have been formal- ized at this time. The 175 students anticipated for this site represents an enrollment equal to approximately 1/4 to 1/3 that of a public elementary school; thus, on a proportionate basis, the 3+ acre facility compares favorably in size. The primary difference between a private church school and a public school lies in the site development. The bulk of the church site is developed with asphalt surfacing to accommodate the parking requirements for Sunday services, whereas, the public school has a much larger area devoted to dirt or grassed playing areas. In addition, substantial building area on a church site is typically devoted to church use not associated with classroom activity. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1981 This site provides a limited unsurfaced play area with most of the building area devoted to classroom and school use. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of this request will enable the applicant to expand their existing service at a location previously approved by the County. The increase in onsite parking without increasing the church seating capacity will relieve onstreetparking problems. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed addition will be architecturally compatible with the existing building and the portable buildings will be screened from the street by the existing buildings and landscaping. The use will be separated from the adjacent residents by a 6 foot high fence or wall. Therefore, neither the addition or the temporary classrooms should be detrimental to the adjoining uses. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The portable buildings have been designed to meet regulations governing the use of such buildings as classroom space. A building permit is required prior to construction of the proposed addition. The parking lot will meet city standards for construction materials and landscaping. 4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general p~n of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this request. CONDITION}>' negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Church of Christ - Temporary Classrooms PROJECT LOCATION: 470 'L" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Church of Christ 470 "L" Street Chula Vista, CA 92011 CASE NO. IS-82~3 DATE: August 13, 1981 A. Project Setting The project consists of 3.19 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Fifth Ave. and L St. The project site is void of any significant environmental resources or hazards. There are no geological, acoustical, soils, or air quality hazards of any significance on or near the project site. An existing sancturay, classrooms, and single family residence are located on the site in addition to 131 existing paved parking spaces. Adjacent land uses consist of single family dwellings to the east, south and west. Chula Vista High School is located across L St. to the north. B. Project Description The project involves the installation of two temporary trailers to house overflow church school classes. The trailers are to be instal3ed in two phases, as the school expands. As part of the master plan for development, the church proposes to expand parking facilities by 97 spaces and eventually add 3920 sq. ft. of permanent classroom space along the L St. frontage. A total enrollment of 175 students is anticipated. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The proposed expansion involves the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission prior to the installation of temporary trailers, construction of additional floor space, and the installation of additional parking. This review shall ensure compatibility with zoning ordinance requirements. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Aesthetics The proposed parking facilities are to be located adjacent to city of chula viola planning department environmental review aectlon IS-82-3 2 single family homes on Fifth Ave. and Westby St. If parking lot lighting is installed it should be shielded to avoid excessive glare on the adjacent residential areas. 2. Soils Expansive soils may be presen% on the project site therefore a soils report should be prepared with recommendations to be incorporated into the project prior to building permit approval. 3. Mobile Noise L St., designated on the General Plan as a "major road," currently handles 13,550 vehicle trips per day and by 1995 will handle approximately 18,400 trips. A preliminary noise analysis has been prepared by the Engineering Dept. which indicates that the future permanent classrooms would experience an exterior noise level of 66.35 dBA. Standard construction techniques will reduce the anticipated interior noise level by 20 dBA, to 46.35 dBA. The State of California requires that interior noise levels for classrooms not exceed 45 dBA, therefore an acoustical analysis should be prepared prior to development of the future permanent classrooms and recommendations incorporated into the project. E. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid significant enviornmental effects. 1. Parking lot lights shall be shielded to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas. 2. An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acousti'cian prior to the addition of permanent classroom space and recommendations shall be incorporated into the project prior to building permits. The following mitigation measure is a standard development regulation: 3. A soils report shall be prepared and recommendations incorporated into the project prior to building permits. F. Findings of insignificant impact. 1. The project will not adversely effect any natural or manmade environmental features present in the project setting, nor will the project generate any pollutants that will have a potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environ- ment. IS-82-3 3 2. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of the City of Chula Vista and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. No imapcts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause a significant emission of any harmful substance or noise which could prove hazardous to the health and welfare of human beings. G. Consultation 1. Individuals & organizations City o£ Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Assoc. Planner Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng. Tom Dyke, Plan Checker Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Asst. Planner John C. Manor III, Applicants designer 2. Documents PCC-82-3 Conditional Use Permit for expansion of Church facilities. Th~ Init],~!,,"Lu~.'": .":~.] c ~ :on ,]n~l .'vnluation forms documenting the findin~:z oll no s~m~Flc~n]t in:pnct nr~' on file and nvailable for public r,~vicw .~t ~h.~ '~h,~l;~ %'~ntn Pl~nn~nq D.~pt., 276 4th Avcnuc, Chi:La %'~uta, (f,.', city of chula vista planning department environmental review aection EN 6 STREET CHULA VISTA SI WAY PROdEC'I' -~. sc.oo- AREA 'L' EET ~-L~EJVllE NTA Ry RIZONA STREET ~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 26, 1981 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-8~-3~ request for temporary classrooms and expansion of church facilities at 470 "L" Street - Church of Christ Principal Planner Lee noted the site of the existing church and school facility located on 3.~ acres on the south side of "L" Street just east of Fifth Avenue. He displayed slides of the site, the buildings and the parking lot and advised that the property has recently been annexed to the City. The sanctuary seats approximately 730 people and the school has an enrollment of 100 children in kindergarten through sixth grade. The existing parking lot, as shown on the slide, can accommodate 98 cars, which provides parking at a ratio of one car for 7.4 seats. This application is for permission to construct a two story addition to the northwest end of the sanctuary, which would include a fellowship hall and kitchen on the first floor and additional classrooms on the second floor. They have requested permission to use two portable classrooms during the construction period. Each of the portable classrooms would accommodate 50 students and the maxmimum capacity of the school at any time would be 175 students. Another phase of the expansion program is the addition of a parking lot to accommodate 206 cars and bring the parking ratio into conformance with city regulations; additional landscaping will also be provided. There will be no increase in the seating capacity of the sanctuary, and.the maximum school enroll- ment permitted will be an increase of 75 students over the present enrollment. A 6 ft. high fence will be constructed at the property line adjacent to the single family dwellings facing Fifth Avenue. The temporary classrooms will be screened from "L" Street. It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted with two mitigating measures and the conditional use permit be approved subject to the five conditions listed in the report. Con~nissioner Stevenson pointed out that the report indicates the temporary class- rooms may be used for a period of three years, but the last condition requires their removal by July, 1983, which is two years from now. It was acknowledged that the condition should be changed to read "by July, 1984, or sooner . . " Commissioner Stevenson also suggested that a deadline be included for the completion of the parking lot. Mr. Lee felt the applicant would not object since they have commenced grading and plan to move ahead with the parking lot construction. Mr. Hardesty of Hardesty Homes, Inc. 245 Church Avenue, advised that he has been working on this project for the church. He reported that the sidewalk, curb and gutters are in already and it is their intention to pave the street adjacent to their property. They have graded the area for the parking lot and are only waiting for approval of this application in order to obtain permits for completion of the work. In response to a question from the Commission he advised that the single family dwelling on the ahurch property is presently occupied by one of the church custodians and it may eventually be removed. John Manor, architect for the project, urged approval of the plans and affirmed their efforts to mitigate an~ problems during the transition period. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Decla~ation on IS-82-3, together with the following mitigating measures. ~a) Parking lot lights shall be shielded to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas; (b) An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician prior to the addition of permanent classroom space and recommendations shall be incorporated into the project prior to issuance of building permits. MSUC (Stevenson-R. JOhnson) Based on the findings contained in the report, the Planning Commission approves PCC-82-3 for the use of two portable classroom structures and expansion of the existing church facilities located at 470 "L" Street, subject to the five conditions enumerated in the report, with condition "e" changed to read "July, 1984," and condition "c" modified to require completion of the parking lot within 120 days. The City of Chula Vista PI;mnin$ Dcp:~rtmcnt 575-5~(}1 May 28, 1982 Mr. James Wright 802 Corte Entrada Chula Vista, CA 92010 Subject: Relocation of temporary classrooms - PCC-82-3 The Planning Department has reviewed your request to utilize two 24' x 36' frame structures on portable foundations instead of the commercial coaches approved by the Planning Commission under conditional use permit PCC-82-3, and to locate said structures at the southeast corner of the church/school property at 470 "L" Street rather than immediately west of the main sanctuary. The petition signed by the adjacent property owners stating that they do not object to the proposed changes has been verified by this department. Your request for a revision to the approved site plan is h~reby approved based on the following findings: 1. The proposed structures resemble a permanent building more than the approved commercial coaches. 2. The structures will be screened from the street by the existing buildings. 3. The adjacent property owners have signed a petition stating that they do not object t~ the proposed revision, The original conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution PCC-82-3 shall remain in effect except as herein amended: 1. The exterior colors of the structures shall match the main sanctuary. 2. The structures shall not be used between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. 3. The driveway immediately west of the main sanctuary does not have to be removed and may remain. C 4. The parking spaces immediately north of the temporary classrooms shall be oriented the Same as the parking on the west side of the proposed buildings~ 276 Fourth Avenue Chul~ Visf~,C~lifo)~ 92010 Mr. James Wright May 28, 1982 Page 2 I believe these conditions of approval will be acceptable to you. If not, I am willing to meet and discuss them with you. If you are still not satisfied you may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within ten days of any final determination. If I have not heard from you within five days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed the conditions are acceptable. Even though there has been some staff time spent on this revision, you may request a refund for the amount of $125 since the matter is not presently scheduled for Planning Commission review. Any future expenditure of staff time for any revisions will require a fee. Sincerely, Mando Liuag ~x Associate Planner ML:hm cc: Building and Housing Department City Planning Com~nission Agenda Items for Meeting of AUgust 8, 1984 Page 9 7. Consideration of appeal for on-premise sign - Vista Hill Hospital (Continued) This item was continued at the applicant's request from the Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 1984. Please see attached staff report. Page 10 To: City Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of July 25, 1984 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-82-11 Consideration of appeal for on-premise si~n - Vista Hill Hospital A. BACKGROUND On June 7, 1984, the Design. Review Committee unanimously (5-0), denied a request submitted by Vista Hill Hospital to modify an approved precise plan in order to be allowed to use a previously constructed interior illuminated wall sign. The applicant has appealed the matter. The project is exempt from environemntal review as a Class ll(a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion approving the precise plan modification subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the installation of the wall sign. 2. A monument or freestanding, sign shall be prohibited based on the approval of the increased sign area for wall signs. C. DISCUSSION The precise plan for the hospital was approved 'by the Design Review Committee in October 1981. One of the conditions of approval included the installation of a monument sign near the front entry as part of the sign program for the hospital. The applicant had submitted a design for a monument sign 5-l/2 feet in height, and 20 sq. ft. of sign area consisting of .cut-out letters. The C-O zone provides for monument signs totaling a maximum of 12 sq. ft. of sign area. The increase in sign area was approved by the DRC based on the finaing that the sign was in scale with the building. The sign was never installed. The existing hospital signs consist of red cut-out letters placed on the parapet wall of the building. The signs ~enote the Administration building and treatment center, however, there are no signs identifying the Vista Hill Hospital. The applicant authorized in advance the construction of a 4'-7"x12'-0", 55 sq. ft. interior illuminated sign in anticipation of receiving City Council approval to erect a freestanding sign on Telegraph Canyon Road, the same as Community Hospital. The City Council did not approve the sign. City Planning Commission Page Agenda Items for Neeting of July 25, 1984 P~e--~ The applicant has taken the main body of the sign, adapted it into a wall sign and requested formal approval from the Design Review Committee to use sucl) sign. The request was denied by the Committee on the determination that it was not in keeping with the existing signs and that tile sign should be designed with cut-out letters. The Planning Department had recommended approval of the request as submitted. D. ANALYSIS The Design Review Committee had no objections to the area of the sign and supported the staff recommendation. At issue is the design of the sign which the Committee determined should have been constructed with cut-out letters the same as the other signs on the building. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign, though different, appears to be in scale with Ume facility and is separated from the existing signs. Since it identifies the entire facility rather than a particular facet of the hospital, the staff believes it can be of a different design without being distracting and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the appeal. WPC l121P SAN DIEGO I Cour~ of Son O~ego ~ City of C~ula Vi=t; VACANT ~uu~o~ u~Gu SCUOOL {SITE) ~ ( R-I ) ~'""'~' I ~°~"'" 7'~#~/-/~'~ ~_~_-_ C/fy of Chul~ ' J County of Son Diego ~ ~ ~ f LOCATOR ~ Doro L~ne