HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1984/06/13 AGENDA
City PLanning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 13, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 9, 1984
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-84-E, Council referral on rezoning of 1.13 acres
located at 309 and 315 Sea Vale Street from R-1 to
R-3-P-13 David P. Davies
2. Consideration of Final EIR-84-40tay Small Electric Generating
Plant, Otay Landfill - Central Plants, Inc.
2. 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 Plants, Inc.
4. PUBLIC HEAIRNG: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-6, Chula Vista Woods
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-84-12 - Request for reduction in minimum
lot size at 881 First Avenue - Robert DeForge
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for
Georgian Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 84-2
Georgian Investors, Ltd.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of June 20, 1984
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room #2.
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
S~JBJECT: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission
Meeting of June 13, 1984
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 84-E Reconsideration to rezone 1.13 acres
located at 209 and 215 Sea Vale Street from R-1 to
R-2-P-l$ - David P. Davies
A. BACKGROUND
On April ll, 1984, the Planning Commission with five members present and
two absent failed to approve the rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2 (a total
of 4 votes is required to approve). The matter was appealed to the City
Council', who on May 15, 1984, indicated by a vote of 3 to 2, their disposition
to approve the request. As required by Code (Sec. 19.12.Il0), the item was
referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The Council
al so requested that the Safety Commission review the matter for traffic
considerations. (Note: A copy of the Planning Commission report, A-113 to
Council and minutes of each meeting are attached hereto.) In addition, the
Council wanted a Commission recommendation as to whether 309 Sea Vale should
be included as part of the ap~ication and rezoned.
B. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council take the
following action:
1. Deny the request;
2. Approve the request {Note: Findings for approval and precise plan
development standards have been prepared and included in this report for
Commission consideration.);
3. Approve the request with the deletion of the property located at 315
Sea Vale Street from the boundaries of the zone change; or,
4. Approve the rezoning to a more restrictive classification (less
density).
C. DISCUSSION
The Council's action of May 15, referring this item back for
reconsideration by the Planning Commission, is set forth in the Municipal Code
to allow the Planning Commission to react to a Council decision which is
contrary to that of the Commission. This referral is not an attempt to have
the Commission necessarily change their decision. It al so affords the
Commission the opportunity to establish conditions or guidelines which would
aid the Council.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 2
The Council also expressed some concern as to whether or not the adjacent
parcel to the south of 309 Sea Vale should be included in the rezoning
action. In the Planning staff report to the Planning Commission dated
5/15/84, it was pointed out that 315 Sea Vale is an 8200 sq. ft. lot
containing one single family dwelling and that rezoning the property to
R-3-P(13) would allow a maximum of two units on the property.
If rezoning of 309 Sea Vale to R-3-P(13) occurs, it is staff's opinion
that it is necessary to include 315 Sea Vale so that a logical zoning pattern
develops for the west side of Sea Vale Street.
D. RECOMMENDATION AND STANDARDS
The Planning Department still does not support the request. However,
should the City Council adopt the ordinance to rezone the area, it is
recommended that 315 Sea Vale be included as well as the suggested development
guidelines included below:
1. The height of any structure shall not exceed two stories and 20 feet
in height above the highest finished grade level.
2. A minimum 20 foot setback shall be maintained from the easterly
property line for the most southerly lot {315 Sea Vale) and 80'
minimum for 309 Sea Vale.
3. Any grading of the property shall preserve the basic integrity of the
land form and retain as many trees as possible as determined upon
review of the grading plan by the City's Landscape Architect.
4. Prior to issuance of building permit the sight visibility problem at
the southeast corner of the intersection shall be resolved to the
satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer.
5. ~l required parking shall be provided on site.
E. FINDINGS:
Below are the findings which would have to be made to sustain a
recommendation of R-3-P{13). If the request is denied, no such findings are
required.
The property or area to which the P modifying district is supplied is an
area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses, and
the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to
coexist between 1 and usages which might otherwise prove incompatible.
lhe subject property is located adjacent to a stable single family
neighborhood and the attachment of the P district will permit the
establishment of development standards to ensure compatibility
between uses.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 3
The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an
efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent
zones.
The attachment of the P district will enable the City to establish a
density on the subject property which would be in keeping with the
adjoining area.
WPC 0991P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 11, 1984 Page 4
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 84-E - Consideration to rezone 1.13 acres located
at 309 and 315 Sea Vale Street from R-! to R-3-P-!3 -
David P. Davies
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to rezone the property located at 309
Sea Vale Street from R-1 (single family residential) to R-3-P-13
IMultiple family residential subject to a precise plan at a density
of 13 dwelling units per acre). In order to create a logical zone
bounda~, the City has included the property located at 315 Sea Vale
street in the request.
2. An Initial Study, IS-84-22 of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator
on March 29, 1984, who concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration
be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-22.
2. Adopt a motion to deny the request.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-3-G-D Vacant (approved 107 unit senior project)
South C-O Plant nursery
East R-1 Single family dwellings
West C-O Office building
2. Existing site characteristics.
The applicant's property is a 0.94 acre irregularly shaped parcel
located at the northwest intersection of Sea Vale Street and Third
Avenue and is developed with a single family dwelling. The property
included by the City is a 0.19 acre (8,251 sq. ft.) triangular parcel
which is also developed with a single family dwelling. The total
area under consideration is 1.13 acres.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 11, 1984 Page 5
Topographically, the two parcels form a small narrow knoll which
projects westerly. The adjoining properties to north, south and west
are significantly lower in elevation (25 to 30 feet) than the project
site. The two parcels range from an elevation of 30 feet to a high
of 65 feet. The smaller parcel is actually situated on the south
facing slope of the knoll and the home is a split level structure
with the garage located underneath. The knoll slopes away from Sea
Vale Atreet which is also a downgrade to Third Avenue Extension. The
applicant's property has a number of mature trees.
3. General plan.
The subject properties are designated for medium density residential
at a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre by the General
Plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with this land use
designation. The adjacent General Plan land use designations are as
follows:
North - High density residential - 13 to 26 DU's/gross acre
South - Commercial (Professional and administrative)
East - Medium density - 4 to 12 DU's/gross acre
West - Commercial (Professional and administrative)
4. Previous rezonings.
In 1976 the two parcels were rezoned from R-3 to R-1 as part of a
citywide rezoning program known as "neighborhoods in transition"
designed to protect single family neighborhoods adjacent to R-3 areas
and single family enclaves within the R-3 zone. The rezoning
(initiated by the City) was denied by the Planning Commission by a
vote of 4 to 2; however, upon appeal the City Council unanimously
(one absent) approved the downzoning of the two parcels to R-1.
The property immediately to the north and east of the subject
property was recently rezoned to R-3-G (PCZ-84-B) to allow for the
development of a 207-unit senior housing project. The conditional
use permit (PCC-84-5) was approved by the City Council in December
1983. Primary access to that project is from "C" Street.
5. Proposed development plan.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the development of
the 0.94 acre parcel. The proposed development is a 12-unit
condominium project consisting of two 6-unit structures. There will
be three basic floor plans, each having two bedrooms. Each structure
will have two units and six garages on the first floor and four units
on the second floor. Access is provided a single two-way driveway in
the center of the two buildings which leads to 12 open parking spaces
at the west end of the site. The total parking on-site will be 24
spaces (12 garages and 12 open), a ratio of 2 spaces per unit.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 11, 1984 Page 6
The proposed design will be contemporary spanish architecture with a
stucco exterior, mission tile roofs and wood trim. The elevations
will have a series of off-sets created by wing walls, window
projections and other features. The plan is well conceived and
utilizes the existing topography to its advantage.
D. ANALYSIS
There are a number of arguments to be made both in favor and against the
rezoning request. These are listed below:
In favor
1. The proposed density is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The subject property is bounded by commercial on two sides (south and
west) and multiple family on the other (north).
3. It is separated from the majority of the single family dwellings by
the street.
4. The proposed site plan shows how the property can be effectively
developed with condominiums.
Against
1. Despite the fact that a nursery exists at the intersection, the
street leading to the development is primarily single family in
character.
2. A total of 14 units may be constructed on the two parcels which would
generate ll2 trips per day (8 ADT per unit) versus 22 trips (ll ADT
per single family) generated by the existing two residences. (Note:
Under the "dwelling group" provision of the Code a maximum of 4 to 5
units could be constructed on the applicants' property; however, the
location of the existing residence would limit the number of units
unless removed. A conditional use permit is required for a dwelling
group. The ADT would be 55 trips or 66 trips per day for 5 or 6
units, respectively.)
3. The traffic visibility at the intersection of Third Avenue and Kea
Vale, especially for northbound traffic on Third Avenue which must
make a left turn movement onto the site, is restricted because of the
existing street grades. The increase in traffic generated by the 12
units would compound the problem.
4. The additional property included by the City has an area of 8,251 sq.
ft. and under the R-3-P-13 zoning, a maximum of 2 units would be
allowed. Given the topographic constraints of the property and
economic factors it is unlikely that the property would be
redeveloped or another unit added.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 11, 1984 Page 7
5. Since redevelopment of the smaller parcel is unlikely, approval of
this request would be equivalent to "spot" zoning.
6. The multiple family development represents an intrusion into a stable
and well maintained single family neighborhood.
7. The two parcels, though adjacent to commercial and multiple famiy
areas, are separated and buffered by the existing slopes and
differences in elevation.
8. The two parcels were down zoned in 1976 by the City Council based on
the same factors iterated in this report.
After weighing the arguments, it is the opinion of the Planning Department
that the request be denied.
WPC 0878P
negative declaration-----
PROJECT NAME: Sea Vale Garden Apartments
PROJECT LOCATION: 309 Sea Vale Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: David P. Davies
CASE Nh: IS-84-22 DATE: March 29, 1984
A. Project Setting
The proposed project site consists of l) a .94 acre parcel at 309 Sea Vale
Street and, 2) a .19 acre parcel at 315 Sea Vale Street. The parcel at
309 Sea Vale Street presently contains one single family dwelling, a
number of matrure trees and sets atop a knoll overlooking Third Avenue to
the south and "C" Street to the north. The parcel at 315 Sea Vale Street
which is south of 309 Sea Vale Street and fronting on Sea Vale Street,
also contains one single family dwelling.
Existing land uses consist of a plant nursery to the south, commercial
offices to the west, vacant land (site of future 207-unit senior citizen
project) to the north and single family homes to the east.
Several earthquake faults have been mapped in the general vicinity of the
project site and a small fault, inferred from aerial photographs has been
mapped just west of the project site {Special Report 123 from the
California Division of Mines and Geology). No evidence of this
north/south trending fault nor any other faults was observed on property
immediately north of the project site, as discussed in a geotechnical
report prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. {1983.)
B. Project Description
The project consists of the rezoning of 1.38 acres of property from R-1 to
R-3, the removal of one single family dwelling at 309 Sea Vale Street and
the construction of 12 condominium units on .94 acres at that address.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed rezoning to R-3 is compatible with the "high density
residential" (13-26 du/ac) designation of the general plan and will
require City Council approval. The 12 condominium units will require
approval by the Design Review Committee.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Soils
The Engineering Department indicates that the project site may
contain expansive soils. A soils report will be required prior to
any grading of the project site. ~
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
IS-84-22 - 2 -
2. Land Form/Aesthetics
A number of mature trees are presently located on the property
proposed for development. The applicant proposes to retain the basic
topography of the site and to retain as many of the existing trees as
feasible. The applicant should make every effort to retain existing
trees and blend any new slopes into the existing topography. The
City's Landscape Architect should consider the disposition of all
onsite mature trees prior to the removal of any trees.
3. Traffic Circulation
The City's Traffic Engineer has estimated that the proposed 12-unit
development will generate approximately 96 one-way auto trips per
day, l0 percent of what is estimated to use Sea Vale Street at
present.
The entry/exit drive to the proposed condominium units is situated at
a 90 degree turn in Sea Vale Street. The entry drive drops at a 15
percent grade from Sea Vale Street into the project. The City
Engineer will require that the driveway conform to Chula Vista Design
Standard 5, for a downhill driveway. This will provide adequate site
distance for cars entering and exiting the site.
The City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that present site distance
difficulties experienced for cars entering the project site will not
be affected by project implementation and due to the relatively low
volume of traffic presently experienced on Sea Vale Street, the
estimated lO percent increase in trips generated by the project will
not result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
4. Schools
A local elementary school is approaching capacity enrollment levels
and the local junior high school is currently operating above
capacity levels. The additional estimated 5 elementary and 4 junior
high school students generated from this project will serve to
exacerbate current enrollment levels. The developer shall comply
with public facilities policies and ensure that adequate classroom
space is available for new students.
5. Parks
There is presently no developed park acreage within Park District No.
1.04, in which the project site is located. An estimated 0.064 acres
of developed parkland would be required for the project. The
developer will be required to pay in-lieu park acquisition and
development fees concurrent with recordation of the final subdivision
map.
IS-84-22 - 3 -
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation measures are recommended since standard development
regulations will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. There are no significant natural or manmade resources within the
project area which could be adversely affected by project
implementation.
2. The proposed rezoning and development is in conformance with the
general plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage of
long term environmental goals.
3. All potential impacts can be mitigated through standard development
regulations. No impacts are anticipated to interact and cause
cumulative affect on the environment.
4. The project will not create any source of significant noise or odors,
nor will any significant hazards to human beings result from project
implementation.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Tom Dyke, Building and Housing Depa~ment
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner
Applicant's Architect: Corey Breininger
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Geologic Reconnaissance for Canterbury CourSes (Southern California
Soils and Testing, Inc. 1983)
Special Repo~ 123, California Division of Mines and G.Qology ..
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the n nolngs of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
v~Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
REVIEW COORDI ATO
~C 0175P
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) city of chula vista planning department (~1"~'~
environmental review section
Agenda '['t em ,~
TO: Planning Co,-~ ssioners:
John W. O'Neill~ ChairmA~
Michael A. Green, Vice-Chairman
Roy R. Johnson
Alex Preasutti
William S. Cannon
Thomas L. Shipe
Edwin A. Guiles
Director of Planning George Krempl
FROM: Peter J. Watry Jr.
81 Secon~ Avenue
Chula Vista
SUBJECT: Request to re-zone property at 309 Sea Vale from R-1 to
I will not be able to appear before you at the Public Hearing concerning
this property on April 11~ so I hope that I may be permitted to address some
comments to you in this fashion.
Along with ~ neighbors, I ~m very concerned with this re-zoning attempt.
Our neighborhood is one of predominantly single-f~m~ ly homes. Most of our homes
are 10~ 20, 30 years o16 and even older. Hut there is also a nice sprinkling of
new homes that have been built in the past few years. Although our's is one of
the city's oldest neighborhoods it is definitely not a deteriorating one in spite
of its age. We have many retired people, as well as young people; families with
grown kids as well as f~lies with young babies; we have expensive homes as well'
as very modestly-priced homes. The homes are kept up, the yards are maintained and
our neighborhood must be one of the most attractive in the city. But it is
wtlnerable.
The Planning Co,~tssion and the City Council have been most helpful in
protecting our neighborhood in the past. We have not asked for subsidies from
the city, nor re-development funds, nor do we complain about the lack of street
lighting and maintenance on some of our streets. The residents and home owners
of our neighborhood bear the full burden of having created a~d maintained this
established and attractive neighborhood· But we d_~o require protection from any
kind of development that is incompatible with our neighborhood -- that is, that
would destroy the very thing that most of us have invested tens of thousands of
our dollars for. People have invested dollars to buy homes in our neighborhood
because it is R-1 and stable and attractive· People have invested dollars and
hours of labor to maintain our homes and our yards in our neighborhood because
it is R-1 and stable and attractive. Our neighborhood is one of the nicest in
Chula Vista -- but it requires the continuing protection of the City.
Once one owner is s.llowed to change from R-1 to R-B, then others must be
allowed to do so also. And once that sta_~ts, that will be the beginning of the
end of our neighborhood as it now exists· Event,,a!ly, of course, it might
become an attractive area of condominiums and apartments, hut in the meantime
it would mean the deterioration of our neighborhood, homes being turned into
rentals, the area becoming run-down, and so forth until the long cycle was
completed into a new type of neighborhood. We beg of you, as we have done
successfully so many times in the past, not to allow that first intrusion
of incompatible zoning·
This incompatibility was recognized in 1976 when the Planning Staff
successfully recommended to the Council that this very property be down-zoned
from R-B to R-1 at that time· In part the Staff report stated:
Staff findings in support of the propozed rezoning were based on the
fact that in terms of land form, existing development, and adjacency,
the subject single family enclave represents a logical component of the
adjoining sound, orderly, and stable R-1 single fmm~ly neighborhood,
and that the existing R-3 zoning on the subject property represents a
potential threat to the stability and order of the entire neighborhood.
· . . The property is adjacent to an established R-1 neighborhood which
is struggling to m~ntain its character. . . The natural topography of
the land better serves as a buffer between the existing R-1 homes to the
east and the commercial areas to the west than would apartments..
Each parcel is occupied By a well-maintained single fmm~ly dwelling. Severe
slopes within and adjacent to the site provide these dwellings with a
natural separation from the commercial and apartment areas to the north,
south and west, and reinforces their relationship to a stable and orderly
R-1 single family neighborhood to the east.
I urge the Planning Co-~4ssion to respect these findings still today.
Our neighborhood is still an attractive and orderly R-1 neighborhood and this
re-zoning could be the beginning of the end for us. I urge the Planning Co~ ssion
to retain the compatibility of this property as R-1 and to den~ the application
for re-zoning.
EXTRACT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL ll, 1984
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-84-E - CONSIDERATION TO REZONE 1.13 ACRES LOCATED AT
309 AND 315 SEA VALE STREET FROM R-1 TO R-3-P-13 -
DAVID P. DAVIES
Princpal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has a l-acre site that was zoned
R-3 until 1976. At that time, it was zoned R-1 as part of an overall City study.
Since that time, the commercial area to the south along Third Avenue Extension has
been developed and the City recently rezoned property to the north and east of the
site to R-3G to allow construction of a 207-unit senior citizen project. The appli-
cant is asking rezoning from R-1 to R-3-P-13 and is proposing to construct a 12-unit
condominium project which will be set back about 100 feet from Sea Vale Street.
The project consists of two 6-unit structures with three basic floor plans. Each
building will have two units and six garages on the first floor with four units on
the second. The buildings are contemporary Spanish architecture with a stucco
exterior, mission tile roofs and wood trim. Access is provided by a driveway between
the two buildings. The parking ratio is 2:1. Several petitions both pro and con
have been received.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Corey Breininger, 9525 Mission Gorge Road, #35, Santee, 92071, the architect, said
the goals of.the development included quality of the environment, architecture
and the impact on the surrounding community. Methods taken to create a development
which blends in and complements the neighborhood include retention of mature trees;
a set-back of the buildings 100 feet from the corner with landscaping designed to
hide cars from view; buildings located 50 feet from any single-family residence;
units broken into four smaller buildings to maintain residential atmosphere; all
parking (24 spaces) provided on-site to eliminate curbside parking; and the use of
parapets to hide the solar heating units. A slide was presented showing the result
of a survey of all property owners within a 300-foot radius. Mr. Breininger sum-
marized his presentation saying the property would act as a buffer between the resi-
dential and commercial developments.
Lane Cole, 273 Coralwood Court, CV, 92010, a Registered Civil Engineer representing
the applicant, reviewed the staff's arguments against the project saying traffic
safety would not be impaired because the distance from Third Avenue to the entrance
of the development is about 300 feet which gives a safety factor of 98 feet for
stopping distance; a traffic count on Friday between 4:50-5:50 (peak hour) indicated
27 westbound and 50 eastbound cars; there have been only three accidents on Sea Vale
since 1980; the statement that development of this project is equivalent to "spot
zoning" because the additional property included by the City is unlikely to be
developed is purely speculative as there is room for development; the lO0-foot
"buffer" space will prevent ~'intrusion" although looking at a Zoning map gives the
appearance that the R-1 is intruding into the multi-dwelling and commercial area;
and, finally, the commercial properties are in the immediate vicinity and the effect
on the property cannot be ignored.
Speaking in support of the project were Ray Yoder, 296 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010,
broker; Dorothy Davies, 309 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010, applicant; David Davies,
132 East 28th Street, National City, 92050, applicant's son. Their comments included
the need for Mrs. Davies to generate income; topography limits the lot-splitting;
12-unit condominium development is cost-effective, single-family development would
not be; the Davies' participation in civic growth throughout the past 46 years.
Speaking against the project were Carol Smith, 275 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010;
Carole Williams, 299 Sea Vale Street, CV, 92010; Lowell Batterton, 209 Nixon Place,
CV, 92010; Susan Watry, 81 Second Avenue, CV, 92010; and Dean Smith, 275 Sea Vale
Street, CV, 92010. Their comments included 209 Sea Vale could be developed into
four or five lots thereby maintaining the R-1 zoning; the R-1 area is defined by the
topography; neighborhood is an unstandarized mixture of old and new and representing
quality in the community; want the R-1 zone retained; feel secure having a home in
an R-1 older zone; many near collisions and one serious crash caused by poor visi-
bility created by sharp angle of the turn; request protection from destruction of
the neighborhood; one change from single-family residential establishes a precedent;
with 12 garage units and spaces, all will expect a garage and space and visitors
will end up parking in the street; if this goes through we will become a neighbor-
hood in transition; a person's need to generate income is not a planning tool;
drivers traveling west tend to shade to the left causing near accidents; the slides
(presented by Lane Cole) were taken with a telephoto lens; the hill is at a steep
pitch and people will have to cross it at the most dangerous part.
Commissioner Pressutti remarked that he was impressed with the project which creates
an excellent buffer between commercial and single-family area but is concerned
about the safety factor. He asked for the opinion of the Traffic Engineer.
Senior Civil Engineer Daoust replied that he had discussed the safety factor at
length with the Traffic Engineer who was unable to give a precise summary because
the potentia~ trouble for traffic comi~g.upSea Vale and turning left was balanced
by the low volume of traffic on Sea Vale and that which is anticipated to be
generated by the project.
Commissioner O'Neill commented that three accidents in 3 years is not many and the
project is architecturally well designed and does provide a buffer, however, in
listening to the concerns voiced by the neighbors and by staff he is finding a
decision hard to make.
Mr. Cole declared that he had used a wide-angle 28 mm lens and there was no intent
to foreshorten; the accident rate indicates that people using the street exercise
caution; the only way to put multiple-family on the development would be to con-
solidate lots through purchase and to buy single-family dwelling units and build
multiple-family on them doesn't pencil out; if you have a stable singlE-family area,
it's going to stay that way and if that wasn't the case, someone would have picked
up the adjoining R-l's when the 34 units went in on Third Avenue below.
In response to Commissioner Guiles' question, Mr. Daoust said the accident history
did not warrant the installation of a traffic sign at the bottom of the hill.
Mr. Breininger declared that 'the project was designed to not cause on-street parking.
The interior parking area is closer to the units than anyt~i'ng on the street.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~
Commissioner Shipe said he would not support staff's recommendation to deny the
request as the project is a beautiful architectural rendition and will add to the
property value in the neighborhood, forms an excellent buffer and safety is not
that much of a factor.
Commissioner Cannon stated he sees no problem with safety, however, previous
rezonings have involved projects surrounded by commercial, this area is R-1 and
has single-family homes all around it.
MSUC (Guiles/Pressutti) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-84-22.
MS (Cannon/O'Neill) - Shipe, Pressutti and Guiles voted "no" - to deny the request.
Chairman O'Neill, after consulting with the Assistant City Attorney, declared that
no further action on the request for rezoning was required unless the applicant
filed an appeal with the City Council.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Krempl asked the Commission's preference for a preview of the
Land Development Process study prior to its presentation to Council (in May) and
which will possibly be referred to the Planning Commission and Design Review Com-
mittee or cancellation of the workshop meeting of the 18th. The Commission chose
to cancel the meeting.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Pressutti is leaving for Japan in the morning and will be absent from
the April 25, 1984 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT &T 9:29 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 25, 1984
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
/rms
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 5/15/84
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCZ 84-E o Consideration of appeal to rezone
1.13 acres located at 309 and 315 Sea Vale Street from R-1 to
R-3-P-13 - David P. Davies
SUBMIttED BY: Planning Director~? (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
On April 11, 1984, the Planning Commission considered a request to rezone the
property located at 309 Sea Vale Street from R-1 (Single Family Residential)
to R-3-P-13 (Multiple Family Residential subject to a precise plan at a
densit~ of 13 dwelling units per acre). Also considered at the time was the
rezoning of the property located at 315 Sea Vale Street which was included in
the request in order to create a logical zone boundary. The Planning
Commission failed to approve the request by a vote of 3 to 2 with 2 absent. A
majority of the total membership (4 votes) is required to forward a
recommendation of approval to Council.
The failure to approve constituted a denial of the request; therefore, an
appeal was filed for the matter to be considered by the City Council.
RECOJ~4ENDATION: That Council adopt a motion to deny the appeal.
BOARDS/COFI41SSIONS RECOI~MENDATION: On April ll, 1984, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-22
which is herewith forwarded for Council adoption.
DISCUSSION:
Adjacent zonin9 and land use.
.North R-3-G-D Vacant (approved 207 unit senior project)
South C-O Plant nursery/commercial offices
East R-1 Single family dwellings
West C-O Office building
E~isting site characteristics.
The applicant's property is a 0.94 acre irregularly shaped parcel located at
the northwest intersection of Sea Vale Street and Third Avenue and is
developed with a single family dwelling. The property included by the City is
a 0.19 acre (8,251 sq. ft.) triangular parcel which is also developed with a
single family dwelling. The total area under consideration is 1.13 acres.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date~
Topographically, the two parcels form a small narrow knoll which projects
westerly. The adjoining properties to north, south and west are significantly
lower in elevation (25 to 30 feet) than the project site. The two parcels
range from an elevation of 30 feet to a high of 65 feet. The smaller parcel
is actually situated on the south facing slope of the knoll and the home is a
split level structure with the garage located underneath. The knoll slopes
away from Sea Vale Street which is also a downgrade to Third Avenue
Extension. The applicant's property has a nu~er of mature trees.
General plan.
The subject properties are designated for medium density residential at a
density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre by the General Plan. The
proposed rezoning is consistent with this land use designation. The adjacent
General Plan land use designations are as follows:
North -' High density residential - 13 to 26 DU's/gross acre
South - Commercial (Professional and administrative)
East - )ledium density - 4 to 12 DU's/gross acre
West - Commercial (Professional and administrative)
Previous rezonings.
In 1976 the two parcels were rezoned from R-3 to R-1 as part of a citywide
rezoning program known as "neighborhoods in transition" designed to protect
single family neighborhoods adjacent to R-3 areas and single family enclaves
within the R-3 zone. The rezoning (initiated by the City) was denied by the
Planning Comission by a vote of 4 to 2; however, upon appeal the City Council
unanimously (one absent) approved the downzoning of the two parcels to R-1.
The property immediately to the north and east of the subject property was
recently rezoned to R-3-G (PCZ-84-B) to allow for the development of a
207-unit senior housing project. The conditional use permit (PCC-84-5) ~as
approved by the City Council in December 1983. Primary access to that project
is from "C" Street.
Proposed development plan..
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the development of the 0.94
acre parcel. The proposed development is a 12-unit condominium project
cohsisting of two 6-unit structures. There will be three basic floor plans,
each having two bedrooms. Each structure will have two units and six garages
on the first floor and four units on the second floor. Access is provided a
single two-~ay driveway in the center of the t~lo buildings which leads to 12
open parking spaces at the west end of the site. The total parking on-site
will be 24 spaces (12 garages and 12 open), a ratio of 2 spaces per unit.
The proposed design will be contemporary spanish architecture with a stucco
exterior, mission tile roofs and wood trim. The elevations will have a series
of off-sets created by ~ing walls, window projections and other features. The
plan is well conceived and utilizes the existing topography to its advantage.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Da te-ETTl'576q[
ANALYSIS:
There are a number of arguments to be made both in favor and against the
rezoning request. These are listed below:
In favor
1..The proposed density is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The subject property is bounded by commercial on t~o sides (south and
west) and multiple family on the other (north).
3. It is separated from tJ)e majority of the single family dwellings by the
street.
4. The proposed site plan shows how the property can be effectively developed
wi th condominiums.
Against
1. Despite the fact that a nursery exists at the intersection, the street
leading to the development is primarily single family in character.
2. A total of 14 units may be constructed on the two parcels which would
generate ll2 trips per day (8 ADT per unit) versus 22 trips (ll ADT per
single family) generated by the existing two residences. (Note: Under
the "dwelling group" provision of the Code a maximum of 4 to 5 units could
be constructed on the applicants' property; boy, ever, the location of the
existing residence would limit the number of units unless removed. A
conditional use permit is required for a dwelling group. The ADT would be
55 trips or 66 trips per day for 5 or 6 units, respectively.)
3. The traffic visibility at the intersection of Third Avenue and Sea Vale,
especially for northbound traffic on Third Avenue which must make a left
turn movement onto the site, is restricted because of the existing street
grades. The increase in traffic generated by the 12 units would compound
the problem.
4. The additional property included by the City has an area of 8,251 sq. ft.
and under the R-3-P-13 zoning, a maximum of 2 units would be allowed.
' Given the topographic constraints of the property and economic factors it
is unlikely that the property would be redeveloped or another unit added.
5. Since redevelopment of the smaller parcel is unlikely, approval of this
request would be equivalent to "spot" zoning.
6. The multiple family development represents an intrusion into a stable and
~ell maintained single family neighborhood.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Da te-E;-/l!F/B~
7. The two parcels, though adjacent to commercial and multiple famiy areas,
are separated and buffered by the existing slopes and differences in
el evation.
8. The two parcels were do~n zoned in 1976 by the City Council based
essentially on the same factors iterated in this report.
After ueighing the arguments, it is the opinion of the Planning Department
that the request be denied.
Petitions in favor and against the request were submitted to the Planning
Department. The property owners signing one or the other are reflected on
Exhibit "A."
FISCAL IMPACT: None
WPC 0928P
· SE( ND
- --L----l-' II [ ~ ~-"---
I I ~' --..J- -.:
~ '~ mo -m-- --:-- -
-~ I
!
-'--- I '-11 _1 i I
! I ~ i- I-~' 1 I----
,
!
- I
i l:--:-'F~
I l
!
' THIRD
i
V F---q
6. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ 84-E CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO REZONE 1.13
ACRES LOCATED AT 309 AND 315 SEA VALE STREET FROM R-1
TO R-3-P-13 - DAVID P. DAVIES (Planning Director)
and
advertised,
Mayor
Cox
opened
the
public
This being the time Place as
hearing ,
Principal Planner Lee submitted slides explaining that on April ll, 1984, the ,
Planning Commission considered the request to rezone the property located at
309 Sea Vale Street from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-3-P-13 (Multiple
Family Residential) subject to a precise plan at the density of 13 dwelling
units per acre. Also considered at the time was the rezonlng of the property
located at 315 Sea Vale Street which was included in the request in order to
create a logical zone bdundary.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the development of the 0.94
acre parcel. The proposed development is a 12-unit condominium project
consisting of t~o 6-unit structures.
The failure to approve the request by the Planning Commission constituted a
denial of the request; therefore, an appeal was filed for the matter to be
considered by the City Council.
After weighing all arguments presented by the residents and its own study of
the request, the Planning Department is recommending the request be denied.
City Council Meeting - 6 - May 15, 1984
Mr. Lee noted a letter just received from Judy Johnson, Woodbrtdge, Virginia,
stating they are the owners of the property at 315 Sea Vale and object to the
rezontng. This evening, a letter was received from Robert Brath stating he is
a true owner of the property with escrow completed today.
Speaking in favor of the request was Mr. David Davies, 132 East 28th Street,
National City, who introduced Mr. Corey Breininger, 9535 Mission Gorge Rd,
Suite "G", Santee, the architect. Mr. Bretninger showed slides noting the
quality of the environment proposed; .the requirement of the architectural
design; the sensitivity 'of the project to the neighborhood; the four buildings
will be set back 100 feet from the street; it provides a landscaping buffer
between the project and the residential area; landscaping is equivalent to two
R-1 lots; the 24 parking spaces will not be seen from Sea Vale Street; the
applicant has met with many of the residents in the area to explain the
project.
Mr. Lane Cole, Registered Engineer, 273 Coralwood Court, Chula Vista, noted
the si'ides he gave to the Planning Department were not the ones being shown
this evening. Mayor Cox asked Mr. Lee to get the proper slides for Mr. Cole's
presentation. Mr. Cole reviewed and commented on the arguments submitted
against the project stating the R-1 is an intrusion into the R-3 zone and not
vice-versa. He noted the difference in the elevation; discussed the
down-zoning in 1978 of the property which would have allowed 28 units and/or a
cluster concept; the extensive landscaping proposed for the complex; it is a
good buffer, the property should be developed to its highest and best use; the
applicants will be preserving much of the vegetation; there will be no real
increase in the traffic; there is no site distance problem coming up from
Third Avenue to the project.
Mr. Jim Federhart, 5252 Balboa, San Diego, Traffic Engineer for the past 35
years stated he studied the area and took a traffic count on April 6, noting
75 vehicles traveling Sea Vale in one hour's time this would amount to
approximately 700 cars per day. Since 1980, only three accidents occured on
this street and they have been single car accidents; a centerline stripe is
proposed to be painted on Sea Vale; there is good site distance from Third
Avenue to the project onto Sea Vale; the project will have no significant
impact on the traffic.
Mrs. Dorothy Davies, 309 Sea Vale, Chula Vista, stated she has lived there for
46 years and her property has always been considered a "buffer". She feels it
is not intruding into the R-1 neighborhood since the project will have a
"park" setting.
Speaking in opposition were Stepehn Sokil, 282 Sea Vale Street, Mr. Newton
Chaney, 292 Sea Vale, Carol Smith, 275 Sea Vale, Carole Williams, 299
Sea Vale, Susan Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Arthur
Harrington, 260 Sea Vale, Robert Bush, 235 Sea Vale, Donald Stell, 210 Sea
Vale.
City Council Meeting - 7 - May 15, 1984
In summary, their opposition was:
1. The project will downgrade the properties in the area.
2. It will have a "domino effect" because many of the vacant properties in
the area will ~ant the same rezoning.
3. It is an R-1 neighborhood and the residents wish it to remain as such,
4. Growth is not necessarily progress.
5. It is a dangerous intersection - anyone coming up Third Avenue to make
the left turn onto the property will face a traffic hazard.
6. Council should modify the General Plan for the density.
7. There is this "dangerous curve" going down to third avenue.
8. Over 100 people )lave signed the petition against the rezoning.
9. The people feel secure they are living in a single family residential
area.
10. There have been as many near accidents occurring on this street which
have not been reported to the police.
ll. In 1972, Mr. Lane Cole, when he was the City's Public Works Director,
tried to have Second Avenue developed as a four-lane thoroughfare.
12. Noted'the slide presentation showing the topography and elevation of the
project.
13. Noted the Planning Department's efforts to rezone the properties several
years ago, as a transitional neighborhood.
14. Noted the many times the City Council has supported the res(dents in the
area in their concerns against rezoning and other developments occurring
in the area.
15. Near accidents some of them )lave )lad in avoiding collis(ons with cars
coming down at that intersect(on.
16. Noted the historical background of some of the homes in that area.
17. Children walking along this area will be faced with this additional
traffic generated.
18. The contemporary Spanish architecture proposed is not in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood.
19. Noted the comments were from concerned residents of the area and not
"paid professionals".
City Council Meeting - 8 - May 15, 1984
Mr. Ray Yoder,296 Sea Vale Street real estate broker, stated he lives in the
area, has no financial interest and does support the rezontng.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the public hearing was
declared closed.
Council discussion followed regarding the "domino effect"; the approval the
rezoning would have on the area; consolidation of other lots for multiple
family development; the proposal to put a stop sign on Sea Vale Street;
concerns with down-grading the properties in 1976; the Planning Commission's
3-2 vote with two members absent; the concern with the density being allowed;
concern with including the property at 315 Sea Vale since its location retains
the R-1 atmosphere of the area.
MSC (Cox/Malcolm) to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission to
consider rezoning the property to R-3-P-13. Assistant City Attorney Gill
stated.the Planning Commission has 40 days to report back to the City Council
and at that time the ordinance to rezone the property will be put on the
agenda.
MSUC {Scott/Malcolm) for the Planning Con,hiss(on to consider deleting the R-3
parcel at the southern portion of the area (315 Sea Vale).
MSUC {Malcolm/Cox) to refer the traffic problems to the Safety Commission for
a report back at the same time this comes back to the City Council.
MSUC (Cox/Moore) for the staff to look into the street lights on Sea Vale
Street, curbs and sidewalks which may be in a state of repair.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 4
2. Consideration of Final EIR-84-4 on Otay Electrical Generatin~ Plant
A. BACKGROUND
1. A public hearing on the draft of this EIR was held on April 25,
1984. There were comments by the Planning Commission, by individuals present
and there were written responses regarding the draft EIR submitted. Comments
and questions by the Planning Commission and others in addition to the written
comments received have been added to the EIR along with a response to each of
these comments.
2. Consideration of the final EIR was scheduled for a future Planning
Commission meeting after responses have been prepared.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that EIR-84-2 has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the EIR guidelines and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission
will consider the information in the document as it reaches a decision on the
project.
C. DISCUSSION
Consideration of the final EIR was set for this meeting so that the
comments on the draft and the responses could be incorporated into the final
EIR. This has now been accomplished and the document is ready for
certification.
WPC lO18P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 5
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-2; request to establish
an electrical ~eneratin~ plant within the Otay
landfill '- Central Plants, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Central Plants, Inc. a subsidiary of Pacific Lighting Corp., is
requesting permission to establish an electrical generating plant which uses
natural gases within the Otay Landfill property.
2. The Environmental Impact Report, EIR-84-4, prepared for this project
is the preceding agenda item.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Certify that EIR-84-4 has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the
Planning Commission has considered that information in reviewing the project.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that City Council approve the request, PCC-84-2, to
establish an electrical generating plant within the Otay Landfill property.
subject to the following conditions:
a. A soils engineering investigation shall be conducted to determine
both the stability of the existing cut slope south of the generating
facility and the proposed cut slope to the north as well as the
foundation characteristics of the soils underlying the proposed
structure.
b. The proposed structure shall be located on the westerly portion of
the plant site to avoid construction over the non-active fault.
c. The location of new utility poles shall be coordinated with the
staged developme~plan for the landfill and positioned outside the
perimeter of the active landfill.
d. The facility shall utilize an above-ground collection system.
e. A regular system of on-site periodic inspection and maintenance of
all portions of the system shall continue for the life of the
project. A copy of the inspection and maintenance program shall be
submitted to the Environmental Review Coordinator prior to
construction. A quarterly report shall also be submitted to the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 6
f. The construction, operation and design of the wells and collection
network shall require on-going close cooperation between the project
engineers and the Herzog Contracting Company, operators of the
landfill. It is recommended that the County of San Diego, as part of
its responsibility in preparing the Otay Sanitary Landfill Staged
Development Plan, periodically review this coordination and assure
compatibility of the joint land uses. The applicant shall submit an
annual report regarding this coordination to the Environmental Review
Coordinator.
g. Created slopes shall not exceed a ratio of 2 to 1.
h. Gas ~ow control shall be established at the well heads.
i. The plant structure shall be painted an earthtone color and all signs
shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
j. There shall be no extraction of gases from the Class I landfill area.
k. A permit must be obtained from the Air Pollution Control District and
all performance standards of the City of Chula Vista satisfied.
1. The land use permit may be revoked by the City Council upon:
(1) Any violation of these conditions.
(2) Any violation of the City's adopted performance standards.
(3) Failure to comply with any recommendations offered by the
Planning Director resulting from data received in the quarterly
reports.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Existing site characteristics.
The ap~icant intends to sub-lease 0.86 acres of land at the
northeasterly corner of the Otay Sanitary Landfill. The site is located
approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Otay Valley Road and
immediately north of the current landfill operations on the property. The
vacant site is located between two knolls with existing elevations ranging
from 440 feet to 470 feet and has not been used for landfill operations.
3. Proposed use.
The proposed project will consist of a gas (methane) collection
system comprised of a series of gas wells (63) situated throughout the
landfill which will be connected by a matrix of pipes leading to a main gas
pipe that will transport the gas to the recovery facility (see locator). The
gas is compressed for acceptance by engines. The engines will be coupled to
generators which will generate electricity to be sold to San Diego Gas and
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 7
Electric. The facility will generate 1.6 megawatts of power initially and 6.6
megawatts in the future. The project will be phased; however, the initial
construction will accommodate the ultimate expansion.
The plant structure measuring 40'x226' and one story in height (25
feet) will house the engines, compressors, switch gear and maintenance area.
The 145'x260' site (0.87 acres) will be enclosed by an 8-foot high chain link
fence. The building will be constructed of sheet metal.
The facility is designed to be unmanned and will be monitored by a
computer system which is designed to back up the operation in the event of a
general power failure. The facility will have an extensive automatic and
manual cut-off system in the event of fire, earthquakes and other accidents.
D. ANALYSIS
The proposed facility is located 1/2 mile east of the nearest residential
area and well away from other land uses and, therefore, should not adversely
affect any existing land uses. The site is located in a very remote area of
the City with extremely low visibility. The facility is designed to capture
and use the natural gases generated by the landfill which presently escape
into the atmosphere. For this reason, the proposed use would improve the air
quality.
Even though the facility will be unmanned it will be monitored by
computers and there will be scheduled maintenance trips to the site. The
safety shut-off system reduces the potential of fire or other hazards.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the co~mnunity.
The landfill generates gases which presently escape into the
atmosphere. The proposed facility is designed to capture these gases
for conversion into electrical energy.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimntal 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 extraction of methane will confine the gas to the site and reduce
gas migration outside of the landfill boundaries. The site is
removed from the existing residential areas and obscured from sight,
therefore, those uses will not be adversely affected.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 8
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposed plant structure is subject to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The granting of this request will not affect the General Plan.
WPC 0999P
i
I
LOCATION
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 9
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-6, Chula Vista
Woods/Gardner Investment Properties
A. BACKGROUND
1. In November, 1977, a final EIR (EIR-78-3) was certified by the
Planning Commission which discussed a proposal to construct 54 single-family
d~ellings on the subject 20-acre site.
2. In January, 1984, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined
that a new EIR would be required to evaluate the current revised development
proposal and to update information contained in EIR-78-3. ~even subject
areas were identified as having potentially significant environmental impacts.
3. EIR-84-6 was then prepared under an agreement with Mooney-Lettieri
and Associates, the project proponent, and the Environmental Review
Coordinator. The ERC then issued the Draft EIR for review on May 7, 1984
IDraft EIR attached).
4. The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment, rezoning,
precise plan and tentative subdivision map.
5. 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 June 27, 1984, when the General Plan amendment will
be heard.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. The proposed project involves the following discretionary acts:
(a) General Plan amendment from "Park-Open Space" for the westerly
l0 acres of the 20-acre project site to "Medium Residential"
(4-12 du's/ac);
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 10
{b) Rezoning of 20 acres from R-1-H (Single Family Residential
subject to the hillside modifying district) to R-1-P (Single
Family Residential subject to a precise plan);
(c) Precise plan approval; and
(d) Tentative subdivision map approval on 20 acres of vacant
property located east of Greg Rogers Park and approximately 1400
feet south of East Naples Street.
2. The project will consist of the development of llO manufactured
housing units on lll lots. Lot sizes will average 4,675 sq. ft. The smallest
lot will be 3,500 sq. ft. and the largest 15,500 sq. ft.
3. The term "manufactured housing" refers to homes that will look like
typical single-family homes but they are constructed offsite in a factory and
transported to the property as the homes are sold to buyers. The garages,
however, are built onsite and will be attached to the houses. The units will
range from 864 sq. ft. to 1274 sq. ft. and sell from $70,000 to $80,000.
4. Access is proposed via a 1400 foot north/south street which runs
adjacent to the easterly boundary of Greg Rogers Elementary School from East
Napl es Street to the proposed subdivision.
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Land Use
The proposed land use change from a potential extension of Greg
Rogers Park, which is the largest park in the City at 47 acres, to Single
Family Residential (5.5 du's/ac) is not considered significant. Mitigation
will include the guarantee of access to SDG&E for repair and maintenance
within their transmission right-of-way and reviewing authority for any
improvements within their right-of-way.
2. Geology/Soils
The project site is characterized by alluvial and expansive soils.
Mitigation will include the need for qualified geotechnical personnel to
supervise grading operations and an additional geologic report to be prepared
based on the final grading plan.
3. Drainage
The proposed project is estimated to increase runoff by 15% over
existing levels. The drainage basins are not large and conventional storm
drain design is anticipated to reduce drainage impacts to a level of
insignificance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page I1
4. Land form
The proposed subdivision will be terraced down from the north to the
south as the site presently slopes. Grading will involve approximately
140,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and the use of crib walls at the
northerly edge of the property. Mitigation will include emphasis on a
landscape plan which encourages land form alterations to blend in with the
natural landscape.
5. Biological resources
The propery was first surveyed by Mr. R. Mitchel Beauchamp of Pacific
Southwest Biological Services {PSBS) in 1977. That report has been updated by
a biological reconnaissance performed by Wier Biological in April, 1904. The
EIR incorporates a compilation of the two reports and finds that no highly
sensitive animal species are expected to breed or reside on the site, although
there are significant stands of several plant species which are of limited
distribution in San Diego County. The most sensitive of these are primarily
San Diego Ambrosia and Orcutt's Birds Beak which are found within the
southwesterly portion of the site.
The recommendation by Wier Biology, contained in the EIR, is that the
habitat for these rare plant species should be preserved and that the
subdivision should be redesigned to accommodate this by not grading in the
areas of lots 47 through 51 and westerly lot III. An open space easement
should be created within this area. Consideration was given to transplanting
the species but this was considered a non-viable alternative to mitigate this
impact based on the lack of success transplanting these species in other parts
of the County.
The EIR concludes that project implementation, as proposed by the
developer, would result in a significant environmental impact, but with the
proposed mitigation, biological impacts could be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
6. Archaeology
No archaeological resources occur on the project site; therefore, no
mitigation is proposed.
7. Traffic circulation
Traffic to and from the project along East Naples Street, east of
Oleander, will increase from almost non-existent levels to approximately llO0
trips per day which is well under the design capacity for East Naples Street.
Traffic levels on Oleander Avenue, north of East Naples Street will increase
approximately 10% from 6500 ADT to 7323 ADT, but service levels at the
intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Oleander Avenue will remain at A for
the p.m. peak hour and be reduced from B to C for the a.m. peak hour. A
significant impact is not anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 12
recommended. The EIR does, however, recommend that a temporary easement be
provided from Brandjavine Avenue (Medical Center Drive) for emergency vehicle
access to the project site in case of a closure of the primary access road.
8. Noise
The anticipated noise levels due to additional traffic on area
streets was analyzed in the EIR. The level of increase is not anticipated to
create any adverse environmental impacts; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
9. Public services
a. Sewers
The project includes the installation of a sewer pump station
which will enable project ~ows to be handled by the East Naples Street sewer
system. Since this system is well below capacity, minimal project impacts are
anticipated; therefore, no mitigation will be required.
b. Fire protection
No significant impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation
will be required.
c. Law enforcement
The potential for construction vandalism is discussed in the EIR
and a recommendation has been made that 24 hour guards be posted to prevent
vandalism during the construction stage.
d. Water supply
The attachment to the Otay Water District and the installation
of an D-inch water main to the project will mitigate any adverse impacts.
e. Schools
The elementary and senior high school districts have indicated
that developer fees will be required for the purchase of new and relocatable
classroom buildings and that a citizens advisory committee, ~ssigned to make
school assignments, will assure that adequate classroom space is available for
students generated from the project.
E. COMMENTS ON THE DP~AFT EIR
Letters received from the Chairman of the Resource Conservation
Commission (RCC), expressed on an individual basis, and Mr. R. Mitchel
Beauchamp (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.) provided comments on
the Draft EIR. Comments from the RCC members relate to the scope of the EIR
and various sections of the EIR. Mr. Beauchamp has been retained by the
developer to respond to the biological issues. Their comments are attached.
WPC lO17P
Mr. John Moy 29 May 1984
HCH & Associates
4877 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123-1667
Dear John,
I examined the Chula Vista Woods project on 22 May. A fire
had occurred in the northern portion of the site, apparently
el iminating the single shrub of Ambrosia chenopodilfolla.
The western alluvial area, where the Ambrosia pemila occurs,
is in a much more deteriorated condition than I recall from my
1977 site survey. Many more trails cross there and in other
portions of the s~te. More non-native vegetation now occurs in
this western area also.
The Ambrosia pumlla population does occur to the north and
south of the project slte, with about 60% of the population on
the project site. As stated in our 1977 report, it is still my
opinion that the population is hybrid in origin. The parential
stock appears to be A. puml la and A. psi Iostachya var.
californlca. This is not discussed in the EIR.
Ambrosia pumila is known from the fol lowing locations in
California: Devenberg property, Bonsall; South of Junipero Serra
Road at Padre Dam; State High~ay 125 reserved right-of-way in
Spring Valley; three populations at the South Bay Plaza in
National City; an open space site on a residential development
now under construction along Spring Valley Creek Gorge; a ridge
along the 230Kv line north of Telegraph Canyon; and the Chula
Vista Woods populatlon.
Because of the habit of the plant to persist in disturbed
areas, I would speculate that additional sites still remain in
the Bostonia and Santee areas, tn most cases, the plants occur
in alluvial soils.
The Dicranostegla orcuttlana (Cordylanthus o.) population
on-site seems to have dimlnlshed since my 1977 survey. This Is
not unexpected due to its annual habit and the depressed rainfall
this past season. As I stated in my 1977 report, this population
and one In the Tijuana Hills, are the only ones known on this
side of the international boundary. The population is
significant mostly from an academic point of view. It is
frequent in Baja California, occurring to rnid-penlnsula.
Page Two Chula Vista Woods Biological Response
I do not agree with the statement in the EtR that a
transplanting alternative Is not viable to mitigate what is
presented as a significant impact. The truth of the matter is
that Mr. Wier failed to successfully transplant the Ambrosia
because he abandoned the plants he had salvaged in 1981 when he
attempted to operate his own consulting business. Also those
plants which were relocated ~t the GII lesple Field site were
subjected to a weed abatement program about the runway. With
tills level of effort, I hardly believe a statement can be made as
to transplanting being inviable. I have observed the plant's
being established in a garden in National City. Once
established, the plant behaves in a rather aggressive fashion,
like other members of its genus.
I would propose that transplantation is viable, it can be
achieved by ln-situ removal of the plants, recontourlng of the
site and replacement of alluvial soil. This can be achieved In
the back, western portion of lots 51, 50, 49, and 48. There Is
still a need for an open space easement, but one with the eastern
boundary set mid-way in these lots and fenced. The easement
shoul~ not be landscaped and It would require management for a
few years to hold down weed competition until the Ambrosla
stolons were established.
The Dicranoste§ia could also be established, but on a more
sloping site In the easement. This would be done by seed
propagation, since the plant appears to have an annual habit.
I would also recommend salvage of the Ferocactus. These are
in demand for revegetation In the Tijuana Slough National
Wildlife Refuge currently.
I bel ieve this response will allow the City of Chula Vista
to determine that, with a minor redesign of the open space
easement, the project can be built without significant biological
impacts.
Sincerely,
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 985
National City, Cai Ifornla 92050
(619) 477-5333
~ay 29, 19~4
TO: Duane E. Bazzel, Assistant Planner
ttarry K. Griffin, Chairman, Resource Conservation
Commission
In reponse to your conm~unication of May 10, 1984, regarding
the draft Environmental Impact Report on tile proposed Chula
Vista Woods Subdivision, EIR-84-6, the following comments
are submitted. Please note that these are my individual
comments and are not necessarily those of the Resource
Conservation Commission since the EIR was not received in
time for consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting.
1. General
The EIR is inadequate in that it fails to give due
consideration to the future development of adjacent
properties. Lvaluation of various environmental impacts
have only considered this project in isolation rather than
as the initial development in a much larger area similarly
planned for residential use.
2. Biological Impacts
The classification of certain species of wild
plants as "endangered" appears to be a local phenomenon
since such plants are "quite common" elsewhere. Also,
experience shows that new residential areas, within a few
years of development, again support a wide variety of flora
and fauna, thus the impacts are largely temporary rather
than permanent.
3. Traffic Circulation
This is the prime example of inadequate evaluation
of development in the project vicinity. The use of Oleander
Avenue as principal access to Telegraph Canyon Road and
1-805 may be satisfactory for this project alone, but
development of the area north and east of the project at
similar density might soon overload Oleander Avenue between
East Naples and Telegraph Canyon Road. This section of
Oleander Avenue is winding, hilly and purely residential and
~ts use as a collector road at increased levels would
seriously impact on adjacent properties.
Page 1
Chula Vista Woods Subdivision, EIR-84-6
Further, the exi~;tence of the SDC~t! easement with
installed transmission lines creates the possibility of
complete blockage of the single access road. The suggestion
for an emergency access to the project area from Brandywine
Avenue is a minimal but inadequate solution. A permanent
road from the east end of the project to Brandywine Avenue
should be required.
4. Landform
The effect of the proposed extensive landform
changes with respect to probable development of adjacent
properties should be considered in the EIR. The initial
developer in this area should not be allowed to restrict or
adversely affect developers of adjacent properties.
Page 2
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 13
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-84-12; request to reduce the minimum lot
size from 7,000 sq. ft. to 6,200 sq. ft. to create two
lots at 881 First Avenue - Robert DeFor~e
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum lot size from
7,000 sq. ft. to 6,200 sq. ft. in order to divide an existing lot located at
851 First Avenue in the R-1 zone into two lots.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3(a)
exempti on.
B. RECOMMENDAT ION
Adopt a motion to deny the request.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
The surrounding properties are zoned R-1 and developed with single
family dwel 1 ings.
2. Existing site characteristics.
The subject property is a 75' x 200' Il5,000 sq. ft.) parcel located
on the east side of First Avenue and 60 feet north of "L" Street. The parcel
is developed with a single family dwelling with an attached two-car garage
located on the south side. The house sits back 30 feet from the front
property line. The property slopes up from the street with the rear portion
of the lot being approximately 15 feet higher in elevation. A retaining wall
separates the rear portion of the lot from the front. There is an existing
unimproved alley (22 feet wide) which serves the properties to the north and
terminates near the northerly property line of the subject property, but does
not physically touch the property.
3. Proposed request.
The applicant intends to divide the property into two lots with the
rear lot receiving access across the front lot via a 20-foot easement along
the southerly property line. The existing garage would be removed to make
room for the access drive and a new garage constructed behind the existing
residence. The front lot would have a lot depth of lll feet and a net area of
6,105 sq. ft. The rear lot would have a lot depth of 89 feet and a net area
of 6,280 sq. ft. The 20-foot road easement and the required guest parking
space on the rear lot would total 2,607 sq. ft.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1984 Page 14
4. Lot sizes.
The lot sizes of the adjacent lots are as follows:
North 875 First 9,250 sq. ft.
South 889 First & 89 "L" 8,250 sq. ft. and 9,250 sq. ft.
East 880 Country Club 17,250 sq. ft.
West 872 First & 103 "L" 13,600 sq. ft. and 7,600 sq. ft.
The other lots on the east side of First Avenue range from 9,750 sq.
ft. to lO,O00 sq. ft. Other lots on Country Club Drive are also very large
being on an average of 14,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in size.
D. ANALYSIS
A1 though the subject property does not abut the alley, it may be possible
to obtain an easement from the adjacent property to the north providing the
rear lot to gain access from the alley instead of across the front of the
lot. The alley access would permit each lot to have a net area of over 7,000
sq. ft. Gaining access from the alley would require that the alley be
improved which would be cost prohibitive unless other property owners were to
pay a proportionate share. This could be accomplished by a 1911 Act to
improve the alley. The fact that access from the alley instead of across the
property would be an economic burden is not justification for granting the
request.
As indicated earlier, the majority of the properties in the immediate
vicinity have lot sizes much greater than 7,000 sq. ft. and are in the lO,O00
sq. ft. range. Therefore, granting this request would not be for the purpose
of allowing the applicant parity with the neighbors. (One letter of
opposition has been received by the Planning Department.)
The subject property is rectangular and the topography is not severe;
therefore, the shape and physical characteristics of the property do not
present hardship.
Based on the aforementioned the staff recommends that the request be
denied.
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical dtfficultles in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in tbs 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.
The subject property is rectangular and does not possess any unusual
physical constraints, thus a hardship does not exist to grant the
request. While there may be an economic burden, this too is not
grounds for approval of a variance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for ~eting of June 13, 1984 Page 15
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 majority of the properties in the area have lot sizes in excess
of 7,000 sq. ft.; therefore, approval of this request would
constitute granting the applicant a special privilege not enjoyed by
the neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
ths chapter or the public interest.
The granting of this request will not be detrimental to the adjacent
properties.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of U)e City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The General Plan will not be affected by the granting of this request.
WPC 0981P/O426P
-ri "K"' STRE E T
~ ,
I ~ ~ I
~./ / _____
.., - ,
/ I
I SAN MIGUEL
I
--
~' rtl SIERRA
SIERRA WAY
~ ~ PALOMAR
sFI S~
I' 5F
I
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1983 Page 16
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-84-2 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Georgian Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 84-2
Georgian Investors, Ltd.
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as
Georgian Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 84-2, in order to convert an existing
35-unit apartment complex on 1.08 acres located at 433 "D" Street in the R-3
zone into a one-lot condominium project.
2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class l(k)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision
map for Georgian Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 84-2, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The owner shall install a street light l0 feet west of the east
entrance drive. (Revise tentative map.)
2. The entrance driveway approaches shall be widened to a minimum of 18
feet. (Revise tentative map.)
3. The developer shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement
with the City wherein all public improvements shall be completed
within one year.
4. All vehicular access and parking areas shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's subdivision manual. Paved areas shall be
designed based on the "R" value method with a minimum traffic index
of 4. The Engineering Department will inspect all paved areas for
conformance with structural section requirements. Said structural
street sections shall be approved by the City Engineer. An
inspection deposit will be required with full inspection costs to be
paid by the developer in accordance with City policy.
5. All exterior building alterations and site plan revisions indicated
on the plans approved by Design Review Committee shall be completed
prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the subdivision map.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1983 Page 17
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-3 Duplex
South R-1 Single family dwellings
East R-3 Apartments & single family dwelling
West R-3 Apartments & duplex
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site is a relatively level 47,045 sq. ft. (165' x 293')
parcel located on the north side of "D" Street and 290 feet west of Fourth
Avenue. The rear (north) of the property ranges from 3 to 8 feet lower in
elevation than the front. The site is developed with a two-story 35-unit
apartment complex constructed in 1967. There are 4 three-bedroom, 22
two-bedroom and 9 one-bedroom units housed in three residential structures.
There are 59 parking spaces located on-site, 35 of which are carports and 24
open spaces. Access is provided by two existing driveways.
3. Design Review Committee
Since the apartments were constructed prior to the requirement of
site plan and architectural approval, the project requires Design Review
Committee review and approval. In Decen~aer 1982 the applicant submitted an
application for design review. The applicant proposed the following: l) the
exterior was to be remodeled and repainted; 2) private open space areas
(patios and balconies) and storage were to be added to meet the requirements
of the Code for condominiums; and 3) the parking was to be increased through
the use of compact spaces. The Committee approved the changes to the project.
D. ANALYSIS
The development meets the requirements of the Code for condominiums with
the exception of the percentage of compact spaces (15% versus 10%) and
interior driveway widths (14 and 15 feet versus 18 feet). Each of those will
require a waiver on the part of the City Council.
The applicant is proposing to restripe the parking in order to achieve the
required off-street parking. The restriping would result in l0 compact spaces
whereas the Code allows 6 spaces. The staff is of the opinion that the
increase in compact spaces is insignificant and recommends approval.
The interior driveways pass under the second floor of the front building
and widening would require extensive remodeling. The applicant proposes to
widen the driveways on both sides of the building as well as the driveway
approaches; therefore, the only restricted areas would be under the building.
This distance is 45 feet. The 14 and 15 foot width requires two approaching
cars to stop and allow one to pass before proceeding.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 20, 1983 Page 18
THe building setback in front is 20 feet with an additional 12-foot wide
parkway. The 20-foot setback allows a car to wait in the setback area without
overhanging the sidewalk. On the interior there is no public conflict. Since
this condition presently exists and has been functioning without any apparent
problems, the staff also supports the waiver of the required driveway width.
The staff also believes that the sale of the units as condominiums versus
renting should not be a factor.
E. FINDINGS
1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and
the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for
such projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements--streets, sewers, etc.--which have been desigeed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The proposed development at 28 DU's/gross acre is
consistent with the land use designation of high density
residential at 13 to 26 DU's/gross acre.
b. Circulation - The project will be served by existing streets and
no streets are required across the site.
c. Housing - The project will provide additional home ownership
opportunity for the residents of the community.
d. Conservation - The site is located witbin the urbanized area of
tbe City and there are no significant animal or plant species on
the property.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The developer is required to
pay the Residential Construction Tax {RCT) of $13,875.00 for the
35 units. (The project is exempt from the Park Acquisition and
Development Fee since it is over 5 years old. )
f. Seismic Safety - The property is not near any known earthquake
faul ts.
g. Safety - The site is well within the response time of the fire
station located on "F" Street.
h. Noise - The units meet the requirements of the U.B.C.
i. Scenic Highway - The site is not adjacent to a designated scenic
route.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1983 Page 19
j. Bicycle Routes - Tile adjacent streets are not designated bike
routes but will accommodate bike traffic.
k. Public Buildings No public buildings are proposed on the
subject property.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this
approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those
needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City
and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
WPC 0990P/OO14Z
~ I r ........
~ I I
I ~ T~ I
-I L · I
I CASSELMAN
IH~ .... L w ~ I~E I ITl=
-T--T- I
II I I
" STREE
ST.