Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/08/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 13, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 23, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-86-2: San Diego Country Club Clubhouse Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-82-3: Consideration of a modification to PCC-82-3 in order to increase student enrollment at 470 'L' Street - Church of Christ 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-1: Requests permission to share parking arrangements at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and 'C' Street in order to operate a night club Sue Li Ip 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-1: Consideration of an appeal from a Zoning Administrator decision regarding the main building canopy for 1136 Broadway - Handyman Store 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-86-34: Requests permission to establish a 46 sq.ft, sign at 381 'E' Street - Camera Bug 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-2: Consideration of an amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to include recreational vehicle storage yards as an unclassified use subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in any zone DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of August 20, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 To: City Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of August 13, 1986 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-86-2, Proposed Demolition and Reconstruction of the San Diego County Country Club Clubhouse A. BACKGROUND This project proposal involves the demolition and replacement of the San Diego Country Club Clubhouse at 88 "L" Street. Because of historic/cultural significance of the clubhouse and golf course, an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared. The draft of this EIR was prepared by a consultant, Marie Burke Lia, for the Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department. Ms. Lia is an historic preservation attorney who has worked on numerous projects in the San Diego area incluaing: 1. The development of a historic preservation plan and ordinances for the City of Coronado; 2. The adaptive reuse of Balboa Theater as the San Diego Art Center; 3. Compliance with local, state and federal historic preservation laws and procedures for the redevelopment of Mission Beach Park; 4. Consultant to Chart House, Inc. on historic preservation/legal matters affecting their historic restaurant sites. After the document was reviewe~ and edited by the Planning Department staff, it was issued for public review on July ll, 1986. Because no state permit or approval is required, the Draft EIR is subject to a 30-day review period. Prior to the preparation of this staff report, comments on the Draft EIR have been received for the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) and Frank D. O'Neill (attached). The RCC did recommend certification of the EIR {minutes attached). At their August 4, 1986 meeting the RCC recommended to the City Council that the Country Club be designated as an historic site but did not recommend any permit control regulations. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 2 B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and take any testimony relevant to the adequacy of the EIR and schedule consideration of the final EIR for September lO, 1986. C. ANALYSIS 1. Project Description The San Die§o County Club is proposin§ to build a new 26,140 square foot clubhouse facility in place of their existing 23,000 square foot clubhouse at 88 "L" Street. The existing clubhouse was built in the early 1920's and has had additions to it which altered the appearance and internal function. A major use permit application will be processed by the City of Chula Vista. At the City's request, the application also addresses the entire San Diego Country Club as a golf course use. Since the proposed use is the same as the existing use no significant impact to surrounding properties is anticipated. In addition, the access to the club property is not proposed to be substantially changed. 2. Project Setting The Clubhouse of the San Diego Country Club is located at 88 "L" Street in Chula Vista, at the northwest corner of the Club's 160 acre site, most of which was recently annexed to the City of Chula Vista. The Clubhouse was designed in 1921 by one of the region's most prominent architects, Richard S. Requa. Famous in Southern California architectural history for the development of his "Southern California" style and several si§nificant architectural and planning projects, Requa chose the Mission Revival style, popular during the 1920's, for the Clubhouse. Requa began his architectural career with Irving Gill and was later associated with Mead, Jackson, Rice and Hamill, all of whom made substantial contributions to the region's architectural heritage. The Clubhouse is seen by some as an excellent example of Gill's influence combined wi th Requa's Mission Revival style. The one-story buildin§ has a stucco exterior, a flat roof with parapets, extensive red tile trim and a simulated bell tower. When completed in 1921, it presented an excellent expression of Requa's work as influenceO by his years of architectural association with Irving Gill. The quality of the building's ori§inal appearance is best appreciated from photographs from the San Diego Historical Society archives and the Chula Vista City Planning Department (copies attached). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 3 As a cultural entity, the Club's membership has always included persons prominent in the County's business and professional life. The course itself is considered one of the finest in the County. The 1921 historic Clubhouse has had several additions, alterations and refurbishments. In 1922, caddie accommodations were built. In 1923, a new golf shop was adden and the old shop was converted into a lounge room. In 1927, the men's locker room was extended and a shower was added to the ladies' locker room. In 1946, the men's locker room was again enlarged and a new golf shop was built. In 1950 alterations were made to the ladies' locker room, the location of the bar was changed and the grill was enlarged. In 1951, a check room was built contiguous to the entrance. In the course of these alterations some architectural features of the 1921 builoing were lost or abused. It is possible that only the north or front elevation remains true to its original appearance, all other elevations having been modified. In October of 1979, the Club's Long Range Planning Committee reviewed the Club's operations, compared other, newer club facilities and considered alternatives for the future of the Club. They concluded that a new, moderately sized and highly functional clubhouse, in the same location, would best serve Club needs. At this time, however, the majority of the membership was opposed to replacement of the existing clubhouse with new construction. Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee was directed to investigate the retention, remodel and renovation options. In August of 1981, the Ad Hoc Committee reported it had made a thorough study of the needs of the Club and all aspects of a minimal and/or full scale remodeling of the clubhouse, the construction of a new clubhouse and other relevant issues. The committee concluded that to remodel the existing clubhouse would be imprudent and that a new clubhouse of adequate size and design to accommodate membership needs was instead required. Three areas of inadequacy were stressed: the lack of seismic resistance, inability to meet minimum fire safety standards and an overall worn and inadequate physical plant. Therefore, the entire premise of the new construction choice was baseO on the structural and architectural analysis which relied on certain assumptions about the condition of the building and did not utilize the options under the Historical Building Code. Further, at no time during this extensive decision-making process were the Club or its advisors aware of the historic or architectural significance of the 1921 building. A true historic restoration/rehabilitation alternative was never pursued. City Planning Commission Agenoa Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 4 3. Conclusion The demolition of the clubhouse will constitute a substantial adverse effect on an object of historic significance and eliminate an example of a prominent local architect's contribution to the regional architectural heritage. D. ALTERNATIVES Because the implementation of the project as prepared would result in a significant impact and because no mitigation measures which would reduce the level of impact below significant are available, careful consideration of project alternatives and their feasibility is necessary. It is anticipated that this information will be presented to the Commission when it considers the CEQA findings {Guideline Section 15091). WPC 3U38P RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of July 28, 1986 EIR-86-2 (San Diego Country Club Clubhouse replacement) Commissioner Taylor reported that he reviewed this structure for historical site consideration, and while it has some history, it was built for the Country Club members and it no longer meets their needs. Commissioner Rowe advised that he reviewed the EIR in detail. He concluded with the need for a larger structure to serve both the Country Club and the community, noting that Chula Vista has no good place for large organizations to meet. He felt the building is not utilitarian, and also pointed out seismic problem with regard to earthquake resistance. He felt the Commission should not stand in the way of whatever plans for the Country Club has for its building. Mr. Reid noted the mitigating measures included in the EIR concerning architectural design. The conclusion of the report is that even with those mitigation measures, the basic impact still remains: that the cultural facility designed by a prominent regional architect deeply involved in the lives of many institutions and people throughout San Diego County is going to be destroyed. Mr. Reid explained the complicated procedure that will be required in approval of the proposed project. Chairman Taylor suggested continuing consideration of the EIR to the meeting of August 11. It was determined that Commissioners Rowe and Hodson will not be present on August 11. Commissioner Donovan stated there should not be a meeting on August 11, since the Commission does not have 7 members, the absence of 2, makes it difficult to conduct business. MSC (Rowe/Taylor 5-1, Commissioner Hodson voting no) to recommend that the Planning Commission certify that the EIR is adequate. July 21, 1986 .,. - TO Enviromental Review Coordinator From: Fire Prevention Bureau (Bob Ledesma - 3167) Subj: Review of Draft EIR 88 "L" Street The fire prevention bureau has reviewed the subject draft EIR and offer the following comments: The existing club house and immediate support use structures are of particular concern to the fire department. The concern is the result of near non-existant access to certain areas of the club house and support use structures. It is of utmost importance that any future construction configuration provide for approved fire apparatus access. August 1, 1986 TO: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator FROM: Shauna Stokes, Senior Administrative Analyst J?t/ SUBJECT: Draft EIR 86-2-Demolition and Reconstruction of San Diego County Country Club Our department has reviewed this draft EIR and has the following comments: 1. We agree that the siting of the golf club house is a significant factor in the design and layout of golf courses. 2. We agree that the current location of the club house is ideal in relation to the layout of the golf course. 3. Alternatives 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 are not practical, based on the reasons listed in the report. 4. Alternatives 4.2 and 4.4 have merit, in that the original club house is an important historical site and implementation of these alternatives would preserve this facility. It is preferable to locate a new facility adjacent to or connected to the original 1921 club house. If you have any questions, please give me a call. SS:ss RECEIVED August 5th, 1986 ~U~ ~ .: i Mr. Douglas Reid PLANNING DEPARI[,iENT Environmental Review Coordinator CHOLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Chula Vista Planning Department City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca, 92012 Re: CASE NO: EIR-86-2. (San Diego Country Club Project Dear Mr. Reid: At the invitatiorl of the Environmental Review Section, please Find my comments arising from the study of Mrs. Marie Burke Lia's excel lent draft Environmental Impact Report. The thrust of these comments is directed at: i. The need to delay the C.V. Count] l's Final approval of the proposed projeet (demo] it]on of the present Clubhouse) until 2. A profess]cna 1 feasibi 1 ity study of the possibi 1 ity and desirability of a renovation project oF the present C lubhouse is conducted. Many members of the San Diego Country Club are unconvinced that the needs of the membership wi 1 1 be best met by the demolition and irreversible el ]ruination of a structure of historic and cu 1 tufa 1 significance that is a i so an example of a prominent architect's contribution to the region's architectural heritage. (Draft: Pg. I and 13) Section 4.2, page 10 of the Draft too gent 1 y chides the archltectura 1 firm of Sad 1 er and Associates for not considering the availability of the 1979 State Historical Building Code and For assuming that the age and composition of the origina 1 structure prec 1 uded its retention because of cost considerations. Page I. Section 3.].1 (middle of page 8): .... Therefore, the entire premise of the new construction choice was based or, the structural and architectural analysis which relied on certain assumptions about the condition of the building and did not utilize the options under the Historical Building Code. "Further, at no time during this extensive decision-making process were the Club or its advisors aware of the historic or architectural significance of the 1921 building. "A true historic restoration/rehabilitation alternative was never pursued." Section 4.2 (page lO) continues: "The Historical Bui Iding Code was intended to make available alternative measures to strengthen archaic materials such as the hol low clay ti le present herein, and to reduce structural retrofit costs. "In 1985 this Code was made mandatory for use with historical bui Idings in gal ifornia. "A renovation analysis by architectural and engineering professionals familiar with this Code could conceivably result in a lower cost estimate, making the rehabilitation option compare more favorably with the new construction option. "The staff of the State Historical Building Code Board ... is available to provide advice and assistance in the appl ication o¢ th f s Code. "In 1980 an informal evaluation ...was made by Mr. Whitelaw of Blayl ock-Wi 1 1 is. He inforr~l 1~Z estimates that a structural survey of the building under the H. B. Code might be achieved within the cost of $10,000.00." Section 4.2 concludes by clarifying just how the Code suggests and permits the preservation of this cultural and historical resource. Page 2. Mr. Reid, please now turn your attention to the certified transcript o£ a Special Meeting of the members of the SDCC on Monday evening, June 30th, Photocopies of the pertinent pages, 61 thur 67 and page 70 are attached. This dialog between Mr. Bi 11 Cory and Mr. Dan Larsen is further irrefutibl e evidence that "A true historic restoration/rehabilitation alternative was never pursued." The study of the draft EIR, Section 5, (page 13) addresses the significant effects which cannot be avoided if the (demolition) proposal is implemented. "The project, if implemented as proposed, will result in the demolition of the San Diego Country Clubhouse. "The demolition ...will result in a substantial and adverse environmental effect on a structure of historic and cultural significance and irreversible eliminate an example of a prominent local architect's contribution to the region's architectural heritage. It would appear from the affirmative X's in the checklist entitled Cultural Resources (Item Il) that the Environmental Review Section of the C.V. Planning Department subconsciously leans toward the desirability of a professional feasibility study that just may encourage extensive renovation and also satisfy the requirements of the State Historical Building Code. Page 3. Mr. Reid, it is hoped that these comments will cause the City of C.V. to direct the Board of SDCC to seek "A renovation analysis by architectural and engineering professionals familiar with this Code (that could make) the rehabilitation option compare more favorably with the new construction option." It is further hoped that the City o¢ Chula Vista would actually select these professionals, given the experience of the Club members with the present Board's proclivity for the demolition of this resource. The bibliography, as provided by Mrs. Lia, pages 14 and could be a starting place, i.e.; Mr. Robert Whitelaw, Structural Engineer; Mr. Wayne Donaldson and/or Mt. John Henderson, Architects, both Historic Preservation Specialists. Mr. Clarence Cul 1 imore, Architect with the State Historic Building Code Board should be approached for his expertise. The Club's membership should have the opportunity to evaluate both options, equally presented. The interests of the residents of Chula Vista in the possible preservation of this unique resource, deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Frank D. O'Neill Membership # 1515. ph. 421-7706 Page 4. 61 1 MR. HAASE: WE ARE CONSIDERED AN HISTORICAL SITE. THE 2 IMPACT OF THAT DEFINITION, WE DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE 3 PRESENTLY AWAITINGt THE E.I.R., THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT THAT 4 BOB CAMPBELL -- BY THE WAY, BOB CAMPBELL AND DAVE MALCOLM -- 5 IF DAVID CAN POINT OUT WHERE WE STAND WITH THIS, BUT YES, WE 6 ARE AN HISTORICAL LANDMARK, AND IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. DAVID, IF YOU CARE TO COMMENT, 8 THAT MAY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. 9 BOB CAMPBELL dUST CAME HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL THIS l0 EVENING AGAIN, AND HE COULD NOT ATTEND THIS EVENING. AND ALSO I1 HENRY THOMPSON COULD NOT ATTEND BECAUSE HE IS OUT OF TOWN. 12 MR. MALCOLM: I'M DAVID MALCOLM. I dOINED, I THINK, i3 ORIGINALLY IN 1977. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIRES A 14 BUILDING OF THIS AGE TO GO THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15 RECORDING HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. 16 I'VE BEEN ASSURED--AND SO HAS MR. CAMPBELL--BY OUR STAFF THAT i7 THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MUST BE DONE ACCORDING TO STATE LAW BUT 18 WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING AND BUILD 19 A NEW BUILDING, IF THAT'S THE MEMBERSHIP'S WISH. BUT THERE IS 20 A PROCESS THAT STATE LAW MANDATES WE MUST GO THROUGHv SO 2i THAT'S THE DELAY. IT'S NOT AN HISTORICAL LANDMARK THAT WE 22 HAVE TO PRESERVE. 23 I' MR. HAASE: GO AHEAD, MR. CORY. 24 MR. CORY: WILLIAM CORY. ONE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN 25 TROUBLING ME FOR SOMETIME AND I THINK SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 1 ALL THE MEMBERSt AND IT GOES BACK TO THE OUTSET WHEN THE BOARD 2 MADE THE MOTION THAT THEY PROVIDE -- THIS MOTION WAS MADE TO 3 PASS THAT THEY PROVIDE $40~000 OR THE REHABILITATIONv THE 4 FEASIBILITY OF REHABILITATION. 5 NOWv AS I SEE IT--AND I'VE MADE MANY INQUIRIES ABOUT WHAT 6 PLANS~ WHAT SPECIFICATIONS--NOT ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS COULD 7 REENFORCE ANY PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION. WE 8 FINALLY ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROUNDS OF -- FINALLY THEY g DIRECTED ME TO DAN LARSEN WHO~ AT THAT TIMEw I THINKt WAS ON 10 THE COMMITTEE. HE 5AID~ "NO. WE DON'T HAVE PLANS OR 11 SPECIFICATIONS.' THE ONLY THING THAT HE SAID I COULD TELL YOU 12 IS: WWE HIRED AN EXPERT." THAT'S A FAR CRY FROM 13 REHABILITATION~ THEIR PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH. I 14 THINK IT SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO THE MEMBERSHIP. 15 THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROPER EVALUATION OR APPRAISAL OF OUR 16 BUILDING. WE HEARD A LOT OF RHETORIC TO THE '81 REPORTw 17 THIS -- SCARE TACTICS. THEY MENTIONED THAT WE COULD BE 18 SUBdECT TO DAMAGES THAT~ SHOULD WE HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE~ IT 19 WOULD DESTROY THE BUILDINGv THAT SORT OF THING~ MENTIONED THE 20 HOLLOW TILES THAT WERE NOT IN THE C0DE~ ET CETERA. THESE ARE 21 NOT HOLLOW TILES. AND I WENT FURTHER TO INQUIRE OF ENGINEERS 22 WHO WERE EXPERTS IN TERRA-COTTA TILES. HE SUGGESTED THAT 23 SECTIONS BE TAKEN OUT~ IF THERE'S ANY -- IF IT SHOWS ANY 24 EXTERIOR SIGNS OF DETERIORATION TO REMOVE THAT SECTION AND 25 EXAMINE IT AND FIND OUT WHO WAS THE MANUFACTURER~ ET CETERA~ ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES . 63 1 AND THEY COULD DETERMINE. WELL, THEY -- THiS ENGINEER WENT 2 FURTHER TO TELL ME THAT THEY DID REHABILITATE AN HISTORICAL 3 SITE IN VENTURA COUNTY WHERE THE TWO-STORY COURT HOUSE, 4 THROUGH SPECIAL TREATMENT~ THEY WERE ABLE TO RESTORE IT, AND 5 IT'S VERY SERVICEABLE. 6 NOW, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH CONSIDERABLE TIME ? AND EXPENSE OF TRYING TO SELL THE LAND FOR $2 MILLION. WHERE 8 CAN YOU TELL -- WHERE CAN YOU SHOW THIS MEMBERSHIP AN EFFORT, 9 A REAL EFFORT, TO SAVE MONEY THROUGH REHABILITATION? I DON'T 10 THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WILL INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE. AND 11 I THINK BEFORE THE MEMBERSHIP SHOULD EVER AUTHORIZE ANY 12 FURTHER WORK ON THIS, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT 13 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FROM OTHERS OTHER THAN THE 14 ARCHITECTS. 15 MR. HAASE: DAN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? 16 MR. LARSEN: THANKS, BILL, FOR BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE I 17 THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE MEMBERSHIP HAS BEEN TALKING 18 ABOUT, AT LEAST I KEEP HEARING IT. THE SUBUECT'S BEEN COMING 19 UP~ AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE WE DID MAKE A DECISION -- 20 WHAT YEAR WAS IT? WE MADE A DECISION QUITE AWHILE AGO TO GO 21 AHEAD AND BUILD A NEW CLUBHOUSE~ AND IT WASN'T A DECISION THAT 22 WAS MADE AT THE DROP OF A HAT. WE DID A LOT OF INVESTIGATION. 23 WE HAD A PLANNING COMMITTEE~ BILL YALE SERVED ON IT, HARRY 24 HARDRIGS~ BOB CAMPBELL, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL OF THEM~ BUT 25 THERE WAS ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN OF US THAT SERVED ON THIS ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 64 i COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO THE CLUBHOUSE AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE 2 ABOUT IT FOR ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 3 WE DID IS HIRED AN ARCHITECT, HAL SADLER, TUCKER, SADLER AND 4 ASSOCIATES, TO HELP US, AND WE WENT INTO THE REMODELING 5 ALTERNATIVE qUITE EXTENSIVELY. HE DID DRAW PLANS. I DON'T 6 KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE PLANS. THEY PROBABLY -- ? MR. CORY: YOU TOLD ME YOU HAD NO PLANS OR 8 SPECIFICATIONS. MR. LARSEN: NO. THE ARCHITECT CAME UP WITH TWO 10 DIFFERENT -- il MR. CORY: WELL, THAT'S AN ARCHITECT. THAT WAS ON A NEW 12 STRUCTURE. VERY TRUE. 13 MR. LARSEN: IF YOU WILL LET ME FINISH, HE WENT INTO 14 TWO -- I GOT IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I KEPT ALL THE FIGURES. 15 THIS IS DATED MARCH 10TH, 1981. THERE WAS TWO CONCEPTUAL 16 ESTIMATES MADE; ONE WAS LIMITED REMODEL, WHICH WOULD BE JUST 17 THE BUILDING THE WAY IT IS, SPRUCE IT UP A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE 18 KNOCK OUT A WALL HERE AND ADD SOME WINDOWS THERE, THAT TYPE OF 19 THING, AND THAT FIGURE CAME OUT TO--AND THIS IS IN 20 1981--81 MILLION, $1,070,0002 2i MR. CORY: ~L~Y I ASK WHO THIS IS? 22 MR. LARSEN: THIS WAS MADE BY TUCKER, SADLER AND 23 ASSOCIATES. 24 MR. CORY: THEY ARE ARCHITECTS. 25 MR. LARSEN: IT WAS ALSO WORKED ON BY -- THE ESIMATOR ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 65 i WAS RICHARD VALLIN AND COMPANY WHO IS -- ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN 2 IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS KNOWS THAT HE'S BEEN AN ESTIMATOR 3 FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER AND THAT GOES BACK 35 YEARSv SO 4 HE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS TYPE OF WORK. 5 THEY HAD TWO DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVESI ONE~ A LIMITED 6 REMODEL AND ONEv A FULL REMODEL~ WHICH WOULD BE REALLY TEARING 7 DOWN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULDN'T BE RETAINED LIKE THE OLD 8 TOILETS AND 50 FORTH AND KITCHEN AND DOING A COMPLETE NEW ROOF 9 AND 50 FORTH. AND THE PRICE ON THAT FULL REMODEL CAME UP TO lO $2.5 MILLION AND THAT'S IN 1981. THIS IS WHY WE RECOMMENDED 11 TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THAT TIME THAT WE dUST DIDN'T 12 THINK IT WAS COST EFFECTIVE TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR A 13 REMODEL WHICH -- IF YOU'VE DONE ANY REMODELING IN YOUR HOME, 14 IT'S NOT LIKE A NEW BUILDING. IT NEVER DOES THE dOB AS WELL 15 AS A NEW DESIGN WOULD. BUT IT HAS BEEN LOOKED INTO 16 THOROUGHLY. 17 ! CAN TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION i8 BUSINESS THAT ANY TIME YOU GO INTO REMODEL WORK--AND I THINK i9 ANYBODY THAT'S REMODELED THEIR KITCHEN OR WHATEVER--YOU END UP 20 SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING T0~ 21 AND YOU'RE NEVER COMPLETELY SATISFIED WHEN IT'S COMPLETED~ 22 PLUS THE FACT THAT WE HAD THE EARTHQUAKE CODES AND FIRE CODES 23 THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE UP TO~ AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN CALIFORNIA 24 ARE VERY STRINGENT. YOU dUST CANNOT REMODEL A BUILDING AND 25 COME OUT WITH A COST EFFECTIVE BUILDING WHEN YOU'RE FINISH. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 66 1 MR. CORY: IN YOUR REPORT IN OCTOBER OF 1981, THEY 2 MENTION ONE OF THE ITEMS--YOU WERE BRINGING THESE SCARE 3 TACTiCS--THAT ONE OF OUR MOST URGENT NEEDS IS TltAT OF A NEW 4 ROOF. THE AUTHOR OF THE THING COULDN'T EVEN TELL ME WHAT THEY 5 HAD IN MIND. I ASKED WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO HEREv THAT 6 ONE OF OUR HOST URGENT NEEDS IS THAT OF A NEW ROOFv BUT OUR ? SIDEWALLS WILL NOT STAND THE WEIGHT. GO BACK IN ~81, YOU'LL 8 SEE THIS IS IN THERE. OUR SIDEWALLS WILL NOT WITHSTAND THE 9 WEIGHT OF A NEW ROOF, SO I ASKED THIS MAN~ mWHAT ARE THEY [0 TRYING TO DOv PUT A NEW GABLE ROOF ON THERE?' WELL~ HIS FACE 11 TURNED RED. HE SAID, "I DON~T KNOW." I SAID, mYOU WROTE THE 12 ARTICLE." THIS IS THE KIND OF EXPERT YOU HAVE, 13 MR. LARSEN: THEY WEREN'T GOING TO THE USE THE WALLS FOR 14 SUPPORT AT ALL. YOU HAVE TO BUILD A COMPLETE NEW BUILDING 15 INSIDE THIS BUILDING. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT COLUMNS IN THE 16 CORNERS AND BEAMS STANDING ACROSS, TEAR THIS ROOF OFF~ DO IT 17 ALL OVER. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO HAKE A BUILDING -- 18 TO GET OCCUPANCY. ig MR. CORY: YOU'VE MADE A STATEMENT YOURSELF WHEN A MAN 20 FROM THE CITY COUNSEL WHO HAD EXPERIENCE CORRECTED YOU ON THIS 21 VERY THING THAT YOU'RE STATING NOW, AND HE FOUND YOU WRONG. 22 MR. LARSEN: WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND ARGUE 23 WITH YOU ALL NIGHT. ALL I'M SAYING IS IT CAN BE DONE AND IT 24 WOULD COST A LOT OF MONEY AND FOR AN EXTRA MILLION DOLLARS~ 28 YOU GET A BRAND NEW CLUBHOUSE. ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 67 1 MR. CORY: UNLESS YOU BRING IN CONTRACTORS WHO ARE 2 CONTRACTED IN REHABILITATIONv YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW. 3 MR. LARSEN: WELLv MR. CORY~ IF YOU'RE WILLING TO 4 GUARANTEE YOU COULD DO THAT dOB FOR 82.5 MILLION~ I'D GIVE IT 5 TO YOU TOMORROW. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD DO IT AND SATISFY 6 THIS MEMBERSHIP? ? MR. CORY: WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND. BUT I 8 SAY IF YOU TURN IT IN FOR COMPETITIVE BIDS~ YOU'D BE 9 SURPRISED. l0 MR. LARSEN: ALL I'M SAYING IS WE INVESTIGATED THIS THING li THOROUGHLY. THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT I'M SURE THAT THE CLUB 12 HAS ON RECORD. ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT IT AND CALL MR. VALLIN AND 13 ASK HIM HOW HE CAME UP WITH THESE FIGURES. IT'S A VERY 14 DETAILED REPORT. IT'S NOT dUST SOMETHING WE DREAMED UP. i5 MR. CORY: I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU ALSO THAT THERE ARE 16 OTHERS BESIDES MR. VALLIN OR WHOEVER~ AND IF YOU WERE TO GET i7 TWO LEGITIMATE BIDS -- I DON'T THINK ONE DIME WAS SPENT IN 18 THAT $40v000 THAT WAS ALLOTTED FOR ESTIMATING THE 19 REHABILITATION. 20 MR. LARSEN: THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS AN ESTIMATE~ 21 AND IT'S A PROFESSIONAL WHO DID THE dOB. 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: IS THIB ON THE AGENDA? 23 MR. I'b~ASE: GO AHEADv MR. ARLISS. 24 MR. ARLISS: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CLYDE ARLISSv AND 25 I'M A RELATIVELY NEW MEMBER. I HAVE A FEW PERSONAL ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES City Planning Commission Agenua Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-82-3; request to modify PCC-82-3 in order to increase student enrollment at 470 "L" Street - Church of Christ A. BACKGROUND This item involves a request to amend the approved master plan for the Church of Christ (PCC-82-3) in order to increase enrollment from 175 to 250 students at 470 "L" Street. In August 1981, the Planning Commission aUopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-3 for the original project. The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the Negative Declaration and determined that it is adequate for the proposed project and issued an addendum thereto. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-3 with Addendum. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-82-3, to increase enrollment from 175 to 250 students at 470 "L" Street provided that a valid agreement remains in effect with the Sweetwater Union High School District allowing for use of the high school playground area. C. DISCUSSION The school consists of a classroom building in the central portion of the church property ano adjacent outside activity areas to the north and northwest of the building. Team sport activities occur by agreement with Chula Vista High School on their playfields directly to the north and across "L" Street from the church school. Parking is available in the large church parking lot directly to the south of the school building. The present request is restricted to an increase in student enrollment from 175 to 250, along with an increase in staff from 19 to 23. No physical changes to the site or buildings are proposed. D. ANALYSIS The existing classroom building has nine available classrooms able to accommodate 30 students each, or a total enrollment of 270 students. The parking area to the south of the school building has 209 spaces and can easily accommodate any increased demand for parking by additional employees or drop-offs and pick-ups. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meetin§ of August 13, 1986 Page 2 The on-site outside activity areas total approximately 25,000 sq. ft. and consist of an asphalt playground area (also used for parking on Sundays), a lunch courtyard, aha a tot lot play area. Outdoor activities are staggered so that only a portion of the children are out-of-doors at any one time. Following is a comparison of the present and proposed schedules for outdoor activities. RECESS/LUNCH SCHEDULE STUDENTS HOURS LUNCH COURT PLAY AREAS TOTAL PRESENT PROPOSED PRESENT PROPOSED PRESENT PROPOSED PRESENT PROPOSED 10:00 10:00 60 60 10:15 lO:15 30 65 10:30 10:30 45 60 10:45 10:45 40 65 ll:30 11:30 60 60 60 60 11:50 11:45 30 65 60 60 90 125 12:10 12:00 45 60 30 65 75 125 12:30 12:15 40 65 45 60 85 125 12:50 12:30 40 65 40 65 1:30 1:30 60 60 1:45 1:45 30 65 2:00 2:00 45 60 2:15 2:15 40 65 These figures show that while more students will be out-of-doors during most of the hours noted, they also show that the play areas currently accommodate up to 60 children at one time and this figure would increase by only five children with the increase in enrollment. Thus assuming the on-site play areas along with the CVHS playfields (used in the afternoon by fourth through sixth graders) are adequate to serve the recreational needs of the existing student body, they should be adequate with the increase. In 1985, the Commission granted an amendment to the church master plan which resulted in the construction of the present classroom building. In conjunction with that request, the Commission required an acoustical analysis to be prepared in response to concerns of residents on Westby Street abutting the southerly property line of the church. At that time, outdoor play activity occurred in the south parking lot. The acoustical analysis did not find any significant adverse noise impacts due to activities involved with the school operations (the background noise in the area and experienced by the residents was primarily attributable to the traffic on "L" Street, activities at the high school, and from the I-5 freeway), but did suggest mitigation measures to reduce the impacts perceived by surrounding residents. City Planning Commission AgenOa Items for Meeting of August 13, 1966 Page 3 By agreement with the residents, the church incorporated the suggested mitigation measures into the project. These measures included relocating the play area from the south parking lot to its present location, and the construction of a noise attenuation wall around the entire southerly and westerly perimeter of the church property and along the northerly boundary of the present play area. These measures reduced the noise levels impacting adjacent resioents to the south and west to well below noise ordinance standards, and since that time we are not aware of any further complaints regarding noise. In conjunction with the present request, a reevaluation of the noise situation was prepared by the original consultant. This report states that a doubling of the noise source results in an increase of three decibels in the noise level. In the recess/lunch schedule it can be seen that, at maximum, the noise source would increase from a total now of 90 children to a total of 125 children out-of-doors at lunch or play at any one time. This is an increase of approximately 40% or 1.2 decibels. Such an increase in the noise level, according to the report, would be insignificant because variations of 1-2 decibels are consioered to be inaudible by the human auditory system. For the reasons outlineO above, we recommend approval of the request. 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 community. Approval of the request will enable the applicant to expand the availability of educational opportunities for those members of the community who wish to enroll their children in a private school. The applicant currently has a waiting list of children. 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 school building and site are adequate to accommodate the increase in enrollment. A noise evaluation has indicated that noise levels will remain well within City noise ordinance standards. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable Codes will be required prior to the issuance of necessary City clearances. City Planning Corm~ission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 4 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 school facility at the enrollment proposed is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site upon the issuance of this permit. WPC 3040P/2652P STREET CHULA VISTA $1ER -=- sc.oo- AREA '' ~ ' --' - ...... RICE WESTBY ST~P~- . I I~ 482 L STREET CHULA VISTA CA 92011 619/425-8940 LUNCH &'RECESSES WITH 250 STUDENTS Lunch Court Play Areas 10:00 60 students 10:15 65 students 10:30 60 students 10:45 65 students 11:30 GO students - 11:45 65 students 60 students 12:00 60 students 65 students 12:15 65 students 60 students 12:30 - 65 students 1:30 - 60 students 1:45 - 65 students 2:00 - 60 students 2:15 - 65 students 7-18-86 ADDENDUM #2 TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-82-3 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-82-3 A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to revise the existing church master plan at 470 "L" Street to provide for an increase in the number of students from 175 to 250 and an increase in the number of employees by 4. C. ANALYSIS 1. The previous acoustical analysis includes the noise impacts anticipated from the proposed children's play area (at the northwest corner of the site). Peak noise levels, which occur during the lunch break from ll:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., occur at a time when ambient sound levels reach their highest levels. No mitigation was required although the analysis recommended a 6-foot high masonry wall (noise barrier) along the southerly boundary of the proposed children's play area adjacent to existing single family residences. This wall has now been installed. 2. A new acoustical analysis has been prepared based on the following assumptions: An increase of 43% in the maximum school enrollment (maximum enrollment is to increase from 175 students to 250 students). Increasing the number of lunch breaks to four in an effort to have fewer students outside the classrooms at any given time. If lunch anQ recess periods were to remain unchanged, tile 43% increase in the school enrollment would have increased the noise levels by 1.3 decibels. Such an increase in the noise level would be insignificant because variations of 1-2 decibels in the noise levels are considered to be inaudible by the human auditory system. During the field surveys performed by RBR & Associates, Inc. in 1984, the maximum noise levels were recorded during the lunch breaks. Increasing the number of lunch breaks to four would result in a maximum of 65 students taking a lunch break at any given time versus the previous 73 students. Such reduction in the number of students taking a break would result in lower noise levels. Hence, even though the actual number of school enrollment would increase, the anticipated noise levels due to student activities would be lower. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the proposed revisions to the church master plan are essentially the same, if not improved in terms of environmental impact or circumstances under which it is being undertaken and I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-82-3 prior to taking action on the project. DOUGLA~. REID ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR DATE: August 4, 1986 WPC 3039P ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-82-3 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-82-3 A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no poitential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to revise the existing church master plan at 470 "L" Street to include: 1. The addition of 7,728 sq. ft. of floor space as a north wing to the church. 2. The addition of 9,000 sq. ft. of classroom space. 3. The creation of a children's outside play area at the southeast corner of "L" Street and Fifth Avenue. C. ANALYSIS 1. Aesthetics The parking lot for this project has been previously installed. The installation of any exterior lighting shall include shielding to prevent excess glare on the adjacent residential areas. 2. Soil s No change has occurred on the site to affect soil conditions, therefore, a soils report will still be necessary prior to building permit approvals. 3. Noise Mobile Noise a. An acoustical analysis has been prepared {RBR and Associates, Inc., November 27, 1984) which discusses the proposed master plan, including the proposed classrooms and children's outdoor play area. "L" Street, which is designated in the General Plan as a "major road", is anticipated to be handling up to 18,400 trips per day by 1995. This anticipated volume of traffic and present volumes which are above 13,000 ADT, indicate that any structures adjacent to "L" Street could be subject to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. The revised master plan proposes to locate the classroom building approximately 90 feet from "L" Street and beyond the 65 dBA noise contour. Therefore, there is no need for further mitigation. b. Stationary Noise. The acoustical analysis includes the noise impacts anticipated from the proposed children's play area (at the northwest corner of the site). Peak noise levels, which occur during the lunch break from 11:30 a.m. to l:O0 p.m., occur at a time when ambient sound levels reach their highest levels. No mitigation is required to meet applicable noise regulations, although the analysis recommends a 6-foot high masonry wall (noise barrier) along the southerly boundary of the proposed children's play area adjacent to existing single family residences. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the proposed revisions to the church master plan are essentially the same, if not improved in terms of environmental impact or circumstances under which it is being undertaken and I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-82-3 prior to taking action on the project, subject to mitigation measure number one specified in the Negative Declaration. DATE: January 4, 1985 WPC 1623P -2- CONDITION7 ~ negative', 'Jeclaration PROJECT NAME: Church of Christ - Temporary Classrooms PROJECT LOCATION: 470 "L" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Church of Christ ~70 "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 installed 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 vista planning department environmental review section 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 present 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 acoustician 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 of 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. The Initial .Gtud7. Appl[c.ution nnd ~vnluation forms documenting the findinqs of no si~lnif[c.nnt impact arc on file and available for public review .it Lh~-_ Chula Vista Planninq Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~l~,w~,~nm'r; L REVIEW COORDINATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review -ection ~N 6 1745E ~ RBR & Associates, Inc. 233 "A" St, Suite 904. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-5454 July 22, 1986 Mr. 3ohn Leppert Leppert Engineering Corporation 8929 Complex Drive, Suite A San Diego, California 92111 Reference: Southwestern Christian Schools' "L" Street C~pus/Reevaluation of the Noise Situation (RBR Job #1237) Dear Mr. Leppert: At your recf~est, RBR & Associates, Inc. reevaluated the noise situation at the Southwestern Christian Schools'"L" Street canpus to incorporated the proposed changes to the school operations. The reevaluation was based upon the acoustical analysis report prepared for this school by RBR & Associates, Inc. (1984). A su~nary of findings is presented below. The acoustical analysis report prepared for the school (RBR & Associates, Inc. 1984) did not find any significant adverse noise impacts due to activities involved with the school operations. However, mitigation measures were sug- gested to reduce preceived noise impacts to residences in the area. Mitigation measures included the relocation of the play area away frc~n the residences to the south and construction of a 6-foot high noise wall around the play area. Mitigation measures were then incorporated into the project and the attenuated noise levels impacting the residences to the south and west of the school were reduced to well below the City of San Diego noise standards. Construction of the noise barrier shielded the residences ir~nediately adjacent to the play area from intrusive noise generated by both the children playing in the play area and vehicular traffic along "L" Street. Proposed changes to the school operations are: · An increase of 43% in the maximum school enrollment (maximum en- rol lment is to increase from 175 students to 250 students). · ~ Increasing the number of lunch breaks from three to four in an effort to have fewer students outside the classrooms at any given time. If lunch and recess periods were to remain unchanged, the 43% increase in the school enrollment would have increased the noise levels by 1.3 decibels (i.e., an increase of three decibels in the noise level per doubling the source). Such an increase in the noise level would be insignificant because variations of 1-2 decibels in the noise levels are considered to be inaudible by the human auditory system. Mr. John Leppert July 22, 1986 Page Two During the field surveys performed by RBR & Associates, Inc. (1984), the maxi- mum noise levels were recorded during the lunch breaks. Increasing the number of lunch breaks from three to four (see attached) would result in a maximum of 65 students taking a lunch break at any given time with the new schedule, versus the previous 73 students. Such reduction in the number of students taking a break would result in lower noise levels. Hence, even though the actual rumber of school enrollment would increase, the anticipated noise levels due to student activities would be lower. In conclusion, the proposed changes in the Southwestern Christian Schools' "L" Street campus operations would not result in an increase in the existing noise levels due to student activities. If ! may provide any additional information or elaborate on any of the above discussion, please do not hesitate to call me at 233-5454. Sincerely, Sharo T. Sanavi Consultant in Acoustics STS:~mh Attachment: Lunch and Recess Schedule for the Southwestern Christian Schools' "L" Street C~¥,pus Mr. John Leppert July 22, 1986 Page Two During the field surveys performed by RBR & Associates, Inc. (1984), the maxi- mum noise levels were recorded during the lunch breaks. Increasing the number of lunch breaks from three to four (see attached) would result in a maximum of 65 students taking a lunch break at any given time with the new schedule, versus the previous 73 students. Such reduction in the number of students taking a break would result in lower noise levels. Hence, even though the actual number of school enrollment would increase, the anticipated noise levels due to student activities would be lower. In conclusion, the proposed changes in the Southwestern Christian Schools' "L" Street csmpus operations would not result in an increase in the existing noise levels due to student activities. If I may provide any additional information or elaborate on any of the above discussion, please do not hesitate to call me at 233-5454. Sincerely, Sharo T. Sanavi Consultant in Acoustics STS:Dmh Attachment: Lunch and Recess Schedule for the Southwestern Christian Schools' "L" Street C~,pus City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-1; request to vary from the standard Ci~v parking requirements in order to operate a ni§ht club at 15 Fourth Avenue - Su Li Ip A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to establish a shared parking arrangement at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "C" Street, and to thereby vary from the standard City parking requirements in order to operate a night club in an existing building at 15 Fourth Avenue in the C-C-D zone. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5 exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request as filed, ZAV-87-1, to vary from the standard parking requirements in order to operate a night club with 4,500 square feet of seating/assembly dance floor area at 15 Fourth Avenue but approve a modified variance request which is subject to the following conditions: 1. Agreements acceptable to the City Attorney shall be submitted by {a) all uses participating in the shared parking arrangement agreeing not to change their business hours so as to conflict with the night club, {b) the property owner agreeing that no new business with conflicting hours will replace a shared parking participant, and (c) the night club shall not be open between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 p.m. 2. Based upon the restriping plan and the submittal of agreements by all eligible shared parking participants and the property owner, the night club could contain a maximum of 3,050 sq. ft. of assembly/dance floor area, but in no case more than 50 sq. ft. for each parking space available through restriping or shared parking agreements. (Note: Remaining building square footage shall be limited to office and/or storage for the night club.) 3. The entire parking lot shall be restriped (double striping) in conformance with the plan submitted and a parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval. Such plan shall include review by the Director of Public Safety to insure adequate security lighting. 4. Handicap parking shall be provided per Title 24, Part 2, Section 2-7102, C.A.C. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 2 5. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Marshal. 6. A construction permit shall be required for work in the public right-of-way. 7. A street light shall be required subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. Building permit requirements shall include sidewalk repairs at several locations, and sidewalk ramps at the corner and at alley-type driveway approaches. 9. A floor plan, to be approved by the Zoning Administrator, fully dimensioned showing the limits of the dance floor area and how it will be contained, location and number of tables and seating areas as well as the total number of seats provided. 10. The variance approval shall be granted for a period of three years. The Zoning Administrator may grant future extensions in three-year increments subject to a report filed with the Planning Commission one month prior to expiration date. Failure to comply with any condition of approval (or complaints filed) shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions of revocation. C. DISCUSSION Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a small, 2.64 acre commercial center located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "C" Street. The 6,750 sq. ft. structure in question formerly contained racketball courts and is located along the southerly property line. Six other structures containing a variety of retail and service commercial uses are distributed around the site along with 125 off-street parking spaces. Proposed request. The proposal involves a request to establish a shared parking arrangement whereby the night club would offset its parking requirement with spaces necessary to serve other uses within the center but which have different business hours. Since the night club is a permitted use in the underlying C-C-D zone, the sole issue raised by this application is the adequacy of off-street parking. The night club is proposed to contain 4,500 sq. ft. of seating/assembly/ dance floor area, and thus would normally require 90 parking spaces for their exclusive use under the Code standard of one space for every 50 sq. ft. of floor area. Hours of operation would be from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven Oays a week. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS As noted above, the center currently has 125 off-street spaces. The current Code requires 121 of these spaces to serve existing uses within the center, exclusive of the night club. Thus with the 90 additional spaces required for the night club, the total Code requirement would be 211 spaces, or 86 more spaces than currently exist on-site. In order to partially offset the deficit, the applicant proposes to restripe the parking area to accommodate 140 rather than the present 125 spaces. In addition, the following uses would be eligible for shared parking because of non-conflicting business hours: PetCo, 25 spaces (9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.); Wood's Appliance, 5 spaces (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.); and, Beauty Salon/Pool Supply, 12 spaces(9:00: a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Other land uses located within the center consist of a bar, two restaurants, and a laundry which all operate in she evening hours. The total offset would therefore be 15 spaces from restriping plus 42 spaces from shared parking or 57 spaces total. Thus even with restriping and shared parking there would still be a deficit of 29 spaces (86 minus 57) to serve a night club of this size. A night club places an extraordinary demand on parking not encountered with a typical retail or service establishment, which would require only 34 parking spaces for this size structure as opposed to the 90 required for the night club. This proposed size facility would place too great a burden on the available parking and existing businesses within the center. Consequently, we would support the application to the extent that the facility be downsized consistent with the additional parking available through restriping and shared parking. This would require that any business involved in the shared parking arrangement submit an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney limiting their business hours not to conflict with those of the night club and, further, that the property owner submit an agreement that no new business with conflicting hours would replace any shared parking participant. If all businesses eligible to participate in the agreement chose to do so, the night club could have a maximum of 3,050 sq. ft. of assembly/dance floor area (140 total spaces less 121 spaces for existing uses plus 42 spaces shared equals 61 spaces for the night club). In that the utilization and efficiency of the parking area represents the substance of the request, a recommended condition of approval has been added which would require renewed striping of the entire lot and staff review of a parking lot lighting plan. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 4 E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship ma~ include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The commercial center in question was originally developed without the necessary off-street parking to accommodate the particular mix of pemitted uses now contemplated for the site. 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 night club is a permitted use in an existing structure within an existing commercial center. Other properties in the same zone and vicinity can generally accommodate permitted uses without the necessity of shared parking. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will net materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The shared parking arrangement will ensure that available parking for the use meets the requirements of the Code. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The variance as conditional will help facilitate the establishment of a use contemplated in the retail commercial designation shown on the General Plan for this site. WPC 3025P/O426P Shopping Center -1 Service Resteurant Dept of Stotion Motor Vehicles oject Pork L ...... J Offices MF MF MF / Offices I ,' Voc -- -- KIMBALL I ~~ ~oo L[ [p fLOCATOR SUE , , J Z/AV-87-1 £1H O~d'¢ ~93 ~ I]111~ I I / I ! ~, d]i"ld~f3 ] (]NO~lX¥'d gP~O LHOIN ~3~©dO'dd '8 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of ~he shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director -of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No )< If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, J soc--6~-T~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, ~rus~, rec~ive~, syndicate, this and any other county, c}ty and county, city, munic}pal~ty, d~str~ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~/~,~ ~' Signature of appliCant/date WPC 0701P ~L~ J I I P A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-8?-l: Consideration of an appeal from a Zoning Administrator decision regarding the color of the main building canopy for 1136 Broadway - Handyman Corporation A. BACKGROUND This item involves an appeal by Handyman Corporation from a decision of the City Zoning Administrator disapproving the use of an orange shade of col or on the main building canopy of the proposed Handyman store under construction at 1136 Broadway in the C-C zone. The Zoning Administrator's decision was rendered under the authority and p~inciple~ established by the Site Plan and architectural Approval provisions of the MunicipaJ Code (Section 19.14.420 et seq.). The Handyman project is not subject to Design Review Committee approval. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning A~ninistrator and deny the appeal, or 2. Adopt a motion to refer the matter to the Design Review Committee for recommendation and continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1986. C. DISCUSSION Earlier this year, the Handyman plans were submitted for site plan and architectural approval showing a bright orange color for the main building canopy located on the easterly or Broadway elevation of the building. The canopy facia measures 10 vertical feet and extends across the full 232 ft. length of the building. The Zoning Administrator disapproved the use of the orange color on the canopy on the basis that it was overpowering and inconsistent with the muted colors of the building and adjacent commercial structures, and actually represented a massive sign. Handyman consequently amended their plans to show the canopy in a dark bronze color with orange lettering and a building permit was issued. The building is now almost complete, and Handyman is appealing to reinstitute the so-called "Handyman orange" color on the basis that it is part of their corporate identity. D. ANALYSIS For the reasons noted in the second paragraph above, we recommend that the Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. If the Commission wishes to have further design input, it is recommended that the matter be referred to the Design Review Committee for recommendation and continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1986. WPC 3029P CRESTED ]UTTE STREET WELTC NAPLES HARBORSIDE., PROPOSED , ----j- ~ HANDYMi~ Exksting j Price E~zzar ~ Existing Indicates Price Club ~ Montgomery Area OXFORD Shopping Center .Shopping Center City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-86-34; request to legitimize an existing 46 sq. ft. wall sign at 381 "E" Street - Camera Bug A. BACKGROUND 1. This item involves a request to legitimize an existing 46 sq. ft. wall sign that )las been painted on the west wall of the Camera Bug building at 381 "E" Street in the C-T zone. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class ll(a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny ZAV-86-34. C. DISCUSSION The Camera Bug occupies a 15 ft. by 70 ft. storefront on the north side of "E" Street and abutting a service station on the west. The sign in question has been painted on the westerly wall of the building abutting the service station property. The City's sign regulations allow wall signs to face upon dedicated streets and alleys, on-site parking areas for five or more cars, and walkways ten feet or more in width. The regulations do not allow wall signs to face upon adjacent private property. In addition to the unauthorized sign in question, the Camera Bug presently has a 78 sq. ft. nonconforming double-faced projecting roof sign. There is also a large and prominent blank wall surface on the "E" Street frontage of the building which could accommodate a wall sign up to 45 sq. ft. in area in compliance with the C-T zone sign regulations. Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The granting of a variance is an administrative act to allow a variation from the strict application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments. The purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel up to parity with other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity..." City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS There is nothing unique about the subject parcel by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features or its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments which would prevent the reasonable use of the property under the strict application of the C-T zone sign restrictions, an~ the granting of the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity. The existing projectin§ si§n provides identification for east/west traffic flow. For this reason, we recommend denial of the request. For the Commission's information, the following section lists the facts which must be found in oroer to grant a variance. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. 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. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. WPC 3035P/04267 / I Chula Visla Inn -- -- -- Retirement Home ST. MF MF MF I Vac MF ~----- MF MF MF i V Service I I I , S~ation Auto Repair Vac Statfon I "E" ' , STREET CI. IEVRO,V S £p. vIc E. . o ~o ao 3e 9e SC.~A£ ; / "= ~o ' CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS )WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. JA~H Z, PARA~A~f 2. If any person iden~ifSed pur~uan~ to (]) above is ~he na~es of ~]] individuals o~ning ~ove than ]0~ of.~he shaves in ~he corporation or o~ning any p~v~nevshSp in~eres~ Sn ~he partnership, 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust,~ list the names of any person serving as director -of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No~>q' If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~__ S~r(jnat ure of WPC 0701P ~S ~, PAPAYA A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-2: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal Code to include recreational vehicle storage as an unclassified use A. BACKGROUND On June 11, 1986, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to initiate a zoning text amendment to include recreational vehicle (RV) storage as an unclassified use. The request was initiated privately in order to benefit a specific site, but the amendment would apply City-wide with the exception of the Montgomery annexation area which has a specific plan under study. An initial study, IS-87-2, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted, and the Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECO~qENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-2. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the Municipal Code to include recreational vehicle storage as an unclassified use as shown in Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION The Zonin§ Ordinance presently allows storage yards as a permitted use in the I-L (Limited Industrial) and I (General Industrial) zones. Storage yards can also be established in the C-T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone subject to a conditional use permit. RV storage facilities are not treated separately in the Code and thus they fall within this general storage yard category. Unclassified uses are considered to possess such unique characteristics and special form as to make impractical their inclusion in any particular zone. Consequently, such uses may be considered for location in any zone subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit following an analysis of the location and operation of each individual proposal. D. ANALYSIS RV storage facilities (storage yards for motor homes, vacation and camping trailers, boats and the like) are unique in several respects. They can vary in size, but normally require large parcels of land. Because of this, and the fact that they are in essence oversized parking lots, they can have an imposing visual and aesthetic impact. On the other hand, they require a comparatively modest investment in improvements (pavement, fencing, small office, etc.) and are generally passive operations in terms of noise and traffic. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 13, 1986 Page 2 Because of the acreage requirements and the relatively low improvement costs, recreational vehicle storage facilities represent both a viable interim use of property pending development at a higher use, and a long-term use for so-called remnant property such as the SDG&E utility right-of-wa~v, both of which can involve property in various zones. Furthermore, there appears to be a significant demand for RV storage facilities as evident by the lack of vacancy in existing storage facilities. For the reasons noted above, we believe it would be appropriate to include recreational vehicle storage facilities as an unclassified use subject to location in any zone upon the issuance of a conditional use permit. The amendment also includes a listing of issues to be addressed with each such CUP application, including screening (fencing and landscaping), access, lighting, signs, hours of operation, adjacent land uses and structures, customer parking, office facilities, surfacing, security, height of storage items, and a procedure to allow annual review by the Zoning Administrator based upon any change in surrounding conditions for those RV storage yards judged by the Commission to represent an interim use of land. Interim facilities would be approved for a maximum period of five years with extensions subject to rehearing before the Commission. WPC 3026P EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 19.54 UNCLASSIFIED USES 19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards Q_~_. Recreational vehicle storage yards: see Section 19.58.400. Conditional use permit applications for the uses listed in this section except campgrounds, recreational vehicle storage yards, churches, amusement arcades and centers, trailers (commercial coaches) and borrow pits of not more than two acres, shall be considered by the City Council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the Planning Commission. CHAPTER 19.55 USES 19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards. An application to establish a recreational vehicle (RV) storage yard (storage area for motor homes, camping trailers, boats and the like) shall address the following issues: (1) height limit for stored items, (2) screening (landscaping and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to the site, (5) office facilities, (6) customer parking, (7) lighting, (8) hours ol operation, (9) security, (lO) signing, (ll) surrounding land uses and structures. The approval of an RV storage yard judged by the Commission to represent an interim use of land based upon zoning, development patterns, and/or pendin9 ~lans in the area shall be subject to a review and report filed each year by he owner with the titS Zonin~ Administrator. ~ailure to file the report or abide by the conditions of approval shall cause the matter to be set for a rehearing before the Commission to consider revocation of the permit or other appropriate corrective action. Permits tor interim RV storage yards shall be granted for a maximum period of five (5) years with extensions subject to rehearing before the Commission. WPC 3027P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment regarding recreational vehicle storage as an unclassified use PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista, Planning Department CASE NO: IS-87-2 DATE: August l, 1986 A. Project Settin~ The Zoning Ordinance presently allows storage yards as a permitted use in the I-L (Limited Industrial) and I IGeneral Industrial) zones. Storage yards can' also be established in the C-T (Thoroughfare Commercial) zone subject to a conditional use permit. RV storage facilities are not treated separately in the Code and thus they fall within this general storage yard category. Unclassified uses are considered to possess such unique characteristics and special form as to make impractical their inclusion in any particular zone. Consequently, such uses may be consiaered for location in any zone subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit following an analysis of t~e location and operation of each individual proposal. B. Project Description CHAPTER 19.54 UNCLASSIFIED USES 19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards Q. Recreational vehicle 9tora§e yards: see Section 19.58.400. Conditional use permit applications for the uses listed in this section except campgrounds, recreational vehicle storage yards, churches, amusement arcades and centers, trailers (commercial coaches) and borrow pits of not more than two acres, shall be considered by the City Council subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the Planning Commission. CHAPTER 19.58 USES 19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards. An application to establish a recreational vehicle (RV) storage yard (storage area for motor homes, camping trailers, boats and the like) shall address the followin9 issues: (1) height limit for stored items, (2) screenin9 (landscapin9 and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to the site, (5) office facilities, (6) customer parking, (7) lighting, (8} hours of operation, (9) security, (lO) si~nin~, (ll) surroundin~ land uses ancO,, structures. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section_CHU[A -2- The approval of an RV storage yard judged by the Commission to represent an interim use of land based upon zoning, development patterns, and/or pending plans ~n the area shal~ be subject to a review and report filed each year by the owner with the City Zoning Administrator. Failure to file the report or abide by the conditions o~ approval shall cause the matter to be set for a rehearing before the Commission to consider revocation o~ the permit or ot~er appropriate corrective action. ~ermits for interim RV storage yards shall be granted for a maximum period of five (5) years with extensions subject to rehearing before the Commission. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans This project is a Zoning Text Amendment and therefore upon adoption it will be compatible with zoning. Each site will, if the amendment is adopted, be subject to individual environmental review and compatibility with the General Plan and any specific or precise plan will be evaluated by a project level analysis. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The amenoment provides a mechanism through environmental review and the conditional use permit process to avoid any significant environmental impacts. The adoption of the amendment therefore ~ill not result in a significant impact. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are no significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed ordinance changes. Positive environmental effects have been noted with the proposed action in that it will serve to reduce future environmental impacts. 2. The project will achieve both short-term and long-term environmental goals by limiting land uses which conform to the aesthetic goals of the Chula Vista General Plan. $. The project will not have potential cumulative adverse environmental impacts upon the area affected by the ordinance change. No significant environmental effects are associated with the proposed chan§es. 4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, since no adverse environmental effects are associated with the project. -3- F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Steve Griffin The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dep~t~ 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section CHUEAVISTA EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) Tape No : 272 Side: 2 356-1510 Tape No.: 273 Side: 2 0-260 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, August 13, 1986 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Cannon, Commissioners Carson, Grasser, Shipe and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED: Commissioners Green and Guiles STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl, Principal Planner Lee, Deputy City Attorney Moore, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Cannon, followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chairman Cannon reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Shipe/Tugenberg) to approve the minutes of the meeting of as mailed. Chairman Cannon and Commissioner Carson abstained. ORAL COt,~UNICATIONS None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-~6-2 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE Environmental Review Coordinator Reid noted that the project involves the demolition and replacement of the Country Club Clubhouse located at 88 "L" Street and the major use permit which addresses the golf course use. He Planning Commission -2- August 13, 1986 pointed out that the EIR reviewed the historical, cultural and architectural significance of the clubhouse which was designed in 1921 by one of the region's most notable architects, Richard Requa. He outlined the processing of the project commencing with consideration of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR on September loth; the major use permit consideration by (1) the Montgomery Planning Co~m~ittee and (2) the Planning Commission and, finally, consideration by Council of both the Final EIR and the major use permit. Mr. Reid stated that comments received had been included with the staff report except those of Ms. Bushong which had been distributed prior to the meeting. He then introduced Maria Burke Lia, Attorney at Law, and specialist in historic preservation and consultant for the EIR, to present the document's conclusions. Ms. Lia reviewed the significance and contributions of Mr. Requa, the architect of the original Country Club structure; noted the importance of the golf course placement in relationship to the clubhouse; displayed slides of the original clean and simple design of the structure and the results from the modifications and add-ons made over the year; she cited the concerns raised about fire and seismic safety; remarked that when the Historic Building Code was adopted in 1979, many architects had been unaware of its adoption and that the renovation options cited by Tucker, Sadler and Associates were not made under that Code. Ms. Lia pointed out that a possible alternative would be to retain and remodel the original building utilizing it as a golf clubhouse and to develop another building dedicated to meeting the social needs of the Club. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Lia replied that a structural engineer would be needed to decide if the building is safe according to today's standards and codes; that she had found no apparent evidence of architectural damage caused by the 1933 earthquake; that opinions differed as to whether this structure was one of Mr. Requa's best works; however, the many former members who had achieved prominence in the County demonstrated its cultural significance. Staff also supplied information that there are 13 historic sites in Chula Vista and that the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) is holding public meetings prior to making recommendations on 5U otller sites including the Clubhouse. Mr. Chairman instructed the audience and the Commission that the adequacy of the EIR was the focus of the hearing's consideration not a decision regarding removal or retention of the building and comments should be limited to that context. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Anthony Ambrose, Planner with HCH, 4877 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, 92123, representing the applicants, stated disagreement with the staff report and the EIR's conclusions that demolition of the existing clubhouse would result in a substantial environmental effect. He contended that there had not been a consensus among the experts regarding preservation; the EIR had not convinced him of the building's "true historical significance"; only the north or front elevation was similar to (but not the same as) Requa's design; the Club's Ad Hoc Committee had indicated in 1982 that the existing facility was Planning Commission -3- August 13, 1986 functionally inadequate for current or future needs; renovation or restoration was too costly and the membership had approved construction of a new clubhouse. He corrected the square footage reported in the staff report from 29,140 to 36,140 square feet - an expansion of over 12,000 square feet; and agreed with the RCC that the Country Club site should be designated as a historical site without any permit control regulations. Mr. Ambrose presented the Commission with a written response to Mr. O'Neill's letter (in the packet) and noted that the Club's Manager, Mr. Chuck Talbott; the President, Mr. Walter Haase; and the Counsel, Mr. Steve Oggle, were available for questioning. Irene Bushong, 856 Country Club Drive, and Frank O'Neill, 836 Turbot Court, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the demolition of the clubhouse citing the adequacy of the club for all but very large social activities; the membership is not expanding but is limited to 400 members; the matter should be delayed until planning and building guidelines for the Montgomery area are developed; and the need for the membership to have all options presented fairly including an opinion (Mr. Whitelaw's) of the building's structural integrity. Ms. Lia emphasized that Mr. Whitelaw's indicated figure of $10,000 was for a structural engineering analysis of the building and did not include an architectural analysis. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Shipe/Carson) (5-0) to schedule consideration of the Final EIR for September 10, 1~86. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-82-3 CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO PCC-82-3 IN ORDER TO INCREASE STUDENT ENROLLMENT AT 470 'L~ STREET - CHURCH OF CHRIST Principal Planner Lee commented that the amended master plan approved by the Planning Commission in 1985 authorized a 175-student school with play limited to the northwest corner of the site and the present request is for approval of a 75-student increase. Mr. Lee noted that since the existing classrooms and parking area could accommodate up to 270 students and over 200 vehicles respectively the primary question is the effect of the noise impact and the adequacy of the outside play area as a result of the increased capacity. The new acoustical analysis based on the increased enrollment, the lunch area and activities as well as recess activities has concluded that the increase of 1-2 decibels would not be audible to the human ear. The applicant has submitted an agreement from Sweetwater High School District authorizing the use of the adjacent high school grounds for a play area; and one letter of protest has been received from 441Westby which is not in the vicinity of the play area. Commissioner Cannon remarked on the irritant factor of an increased duration of a noise level and asked if the ordinance gave consideration to the cumulative amount of time in which people are exposed to a decibel reading. Planning Commission -4- August 13, 1986 He was answered that the ordinance is based on specific levels taken over a specific time and that since the facility currently conforms to the ordinance, the increase in the number of lunch breaks would actually lower the decibel rating and, therefore, a significant effect is not being created. The Commission complimented the applicant on the improved appearance of the project area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Leppard, 8929 Complex Drive, San Diego, 92123, representing the Church of Christ and the Southwestern Christian Schools, acknowledged the compliment and reviewed mitigation measures taken to protect neighbors from noise; the availability of classroom and playground space; noted that the requested increase in enrollment would take place over a number of years; that it was their belief that any impacts would be insignificant; and stated the availability of the Principal and two of the Church elders for questioning. In reply to Commissioner Tugenberg's comment about the need for fence repair on the east side of the property line, he replied that the fence was not on Church property but they have been considering an extension of the masonry wall. Peggy Huff, 450 Westby, Chula Vista, a neighbor, inquired if the high school students were being affected by the use of the public school playground. She was informed school grounds were being utilized during times not required by the High School. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) to find the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-3 with Addendum. MSUC (Tugenberg/Grasser) (5-0) that based on findings contained in Section "E" of the report, to approve the request, PCC-82-3, to increase enrollment from 175 to 250 students at 470 "L" Street provided that a valid agreement remains in effect with the Sweetwater Union High School District allowing for use of tile high school playground area. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-87-L REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE STANDARD CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO OPERATE A NIGHT CLUB AT 15 FOURTH AVENUE - SU LI IP Principal Planner Lee indicated the item is a request to establish a shared parking agreement on a 2.6 acre site located at Fourth and "C" Street where the applicant is proposing to convert a vacant racketball facility into a night club. The land use is allowable; however, to compute the parking need by all the businesses, 170 spaces would be required. By restriping the parking area and with a shared parking agreement, 140 spaces could be Planning Commission -5- August 13, 1986 accommodated - a deficit of 29 spaces. However, if the size of the night club were to be reduced to about 3,UO0 square feet plus a valid agreement guaranteeing no new businesses with conflicting hours, and shared-parking with those fi ms presently having non-conflicting hours, the requirements would be met. Mr. Lee reviewed the conditions of approval and pointed out a possible conflict area in that since the night club is proposing a dance floor, a bona fide eating situation must be included. Mr. Lee also noted that letters of protest had been received expressing concern about possible noise plus fire hazards occasioned by patrons utilizing private driveway space thereby i~apeding access of emergency vehicles. Commissioner Grasser asked if recommendations 5 through 8 are actually requirements or conditions. She was answered that items 5 through 7 would be required in the course of construction but were included in the staff report for the information of the applicant. Other concerns of the Commission included whether a review by the Fire Department would be required; the opinion of the neighboring businesses about the parking lot restriping, and a possible parking overflow into the Department of Motor Vehicle facilities. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Regina Hickey, 21 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista and Barbara Orsa, 45 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, neighboring apartment complex owners, expressed concern over increased trash-littering on nearby private property; possible drug dealings; irrigation ditch no deterrent to parking and chain-fence torn down several times; possible overflow of parking to private areas resulting in difficulty or inability of fire and emergency vehicles accessing apartment projects. Raymond Bernier, 156 Garrett, Chula Vista, 92010, representing the applicant, said that by utilizing a revised parking plan, the requirements could be met. He indicated that according to his count, only 30 spaces had been used by the seven businesses in the center; that the "Smith Private Service" maintains a security check in the area. He questioned use of reduced areas for compact cars; and if the club could be opened for bar and lounge use only between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. if parking were available. In response to questions from the Commission he noted that no live music would be used and Ms. Su Li Ip replied that a liquor license had been secured. Abe Sinor, 3100 Fifth Avenue, owner of the shopping center, said that Mr. Lee had made no mention in his presentation about the letters sent by the tenants who favor the project because the parking lot will be resurfaced and lighted, transients discouraged and the vacant building utilized; after lO years of operation, the insurance costs had forced the closure of the racketball court; there were few uses for such an area so it had been vacant 8 months; that he was willing to do anything feasible to make the property more attractive to the public; and that the private security patrol had never reported problems in the area. Planning Commission -6- August 13, 1986 Mr. Lee observed that supporting letters had been received from three tenants; Woods Appliance, PetCo and the Co-op Laundry; that compact spaces were effective only where a certain amount of parking control could be exercised as in office structures and employment centers; however, compact spaces are not effective in retail establishments. He suggested that the possible construction of a wall on the south property line of PetCo would discourage people from parking in adjacent areas; and that in light of the testimony given, a 2-weeks continuance to resolve the problems of additional hours, parking ratios and the floor plan should be considered. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (5-U) to continue the hearing for 2 weeks. At 8:35, the Chairman declared a 5-minute recess. The Commission reconvened at 8:39. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-1 CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION REGARDING THE COLOR OF THE MAIN BUILDING CANOPY FOR 1136 BROADWAY - HANDYMAN CORPORATION Principal Planner Lee commented that Handyman has a new building under construction next to the Price Bazaar and that when the plans were initially submitted a bright orange color was proposed for the main building canopy. The Zoning Administrator using his design authority declared the color inconsistent with the adjacent structures, whereupon the design was resubmitted featuring a brown color. Mr. Lee noted that although Handyman claims the orange color is part of its corporate image the slides being shown the Commission illustrate that the orange canopy is not acceptable in other design sensitive communities. He recommended that unless the Commission denied the appeal, the item should be continued to the meeting of August 27, 1986 for input from the Design Review Committee. Charles McCray, 6666 Convoy Court, San Diego, Planning Director for Handyman and representing the firm, declared an immediate decision was needed to facilitate a Thanksgiving opening; that the slides shown were of facilities that had been part of Handyman for a 5-year span; the orange canopy is representative of their current corporate image and their present objective to make all the stores exactly alike outside and inside. He pointed out that the elevations were simple and well-designed; the wall system is a concrete color and therefore almost a negative space; they had no desire for a incorrect design situation but the orange canopy would not be as offensive as the plain walls. Mr. McCray used the overhead projector to display slides of the nearby Ralphs, McDonalds, Target and Price Bazaar which also use bright orange-red colors. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. McCray said that the plans had been submitted for over 6 months and that the brown canopy had been submitted to facilitate the reviewing process with the determination to request a color change further in the process; that it had never been Handyman's intent to utilize a brown canopy if there was an alternative. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission -7- August 13, 1986 Commissioner Tugenberg questioned the logic that permitted Home Depot to retain their logo and denied Handyman. Principal Planner Lee explained that Home Depot had requested a striped sign program; but the case in question was a total architectural element because the color jumps out in a bolder fashion; he cited other corporations who had minimized their logos for use in Chula Vista; and noted the great need to upgrade not only the appearance of the Montgomery area but the total neighboring community. Commissioner Cannon stated that he did not feel the orange canopy would add anything to the corporate image and that Chula Vista should not take the back door in aesthetic quality. MSUC (Carson/Grasser) (b-O) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-86-34 - REQUEST TO LEGITIMIZE AN EXISTING 46-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AT 381 "E" STREET - CAMERA BUG Principal Planner Lee stated that the applicant has a business located on the north side of "E" Street which is 15 feet wide and has a 78-foot non- conforming, projecting sign perpendicular to "E" Street. In previous years, the former occupant had added a nonconforming sign facing the service station. Some months ago, the present occupant painted the wall and sign; a violation of the Code which allows for wall signs facing dedicated streets but not on adjacent private property. The sign duplicates the identity of the business and fails to meet the test requirements for a variance as there is no hardship nor preservation of property rights possessed by others in the same district involved. Also, there is a blank wall surface on the "E" Street frontage of the store that could accommodate a 45-square foot wall sign that would be in conformance of the Code. Staff, for these reasons, is recommending denial of the request. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James Papadakis, 75 Third Avenue, representing the Camera Bug, declared that the new sign is economically vital; they have tried to simplify and improve a previous nonconforming sign to make it easy to find the business; the whole t)~eory of signage exists for the use of the public which has the right to find a place easily. He contended that new architectural structures work signage into tt~e plans at the time of plan drawing, but older buildings are stuck with very little sign ability; and because they are on a corner they can make theirs more visible. He cited the instance of a visitor from Coronado who had great difficulty finding their location as she was looking for a sign at eye level. He noted that because of the traffic conditions on "E" Street, prospective patrons do not look upwards for signs. Joann Papadakis, 75 Third Avenue, a sales clerk in the Camera Bug; and Mary Wilardson, 509 Carvalos Drive, Chula Vista, owner of the property, spoke in support of the request stating that there have been fewer accidents at the corner of Fourth and "E" and an increase in business since the sign was put Planning Commission -8- August 13, 1986 up; there had been an intention to put the name on the front of the building but it was judged that the public wouldn't see it; that the City Fathers want to see business in Chula Vista prospering; and that the other sign had been erected before the Papadakis' moved into the building and she, the owner, saw no reason why it could not be replaced with a clearer one. Cilarles Butler, Butler Chevron, 397 "E" Street, cited parking problems occasioned by patrons of the Camera Bug parking on his site; that the previous sign had been blue lettering on a white background (the same colors as the service station) and less startling than the bright yellow wall; and the Chevron District Manager had suggested that some sort of greenery be planted to hide the sign if it is permitted to remain. In response to why the previous tall plant foliage had been removed, Mr. Butler said there had been water damage at the top of the building caused by leaves shedding into the gutter and the trees had been removed at Camera Bug's request. Mr. Papadakis returned to the podium saying that the parking problem has not increased because of the new paint job, but has been a constant problem because of the location of the two businesses and that a similar parking situation exists a block away involving another service station. He referred to the enforced removal of the highway signs as an aesthetic measure several years ago which resulted in only the signs belonging to companies wealthy enough to locate "monstrous signs" 600 feet away remaining while numerous small businesses were "wiped out". No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tugenberg said he would favor the recommendation of staff since there was no justification to allow this bright yellow wall and refuse Handyman's orange canopy. Commissioner Cannon said he considered the present signage to be adequate and he was unable to make findings that the property is unique and requires that type of signage. MSUC (Tugenberg/Carson) (5-0) to deny Variance ZAV-86-34. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-87-2 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE AS AN UNCLASSIFIED USE Principal Planner Lee said that the Planning Commission had previously voted to initiate a zoning text amendment to place RV storage in the unclassified use subject to location in any zone upon issuance of a CUP. The proposed amendment contains a listing of the issues to be addressed with each CUP application to enable the Commission to determine if the usage is interim in nature by virtue of the adjacent uses and zoning and whether it would require yearly review or remain in effect for a maxin~um of 5 years without a rehearing. Planning Commission -9- August 13, 1986 Discussion ensued between Commission and staff regarding the acceptability of t))e wordage "...vacation and camping trailers, boats and the like..." {page 1 under D. ANALYSIS) which was considered too broad a description. Concern was also expressed regarding the recreation storage use being allowed in a residential or retail commercial zone when the I-L zone appeared to be more appropriate. Staff explained that with the CUP process the appropriate land use would be determined by the access and adjacent land use but an opportunity would be created for utilization of areas throughout the City which are similar to the SDG&E easement (part of which is zoned residential) on an interim basis with rezoning the area; that it is more restrictive to utilize a CUP because the underlying zoning remains for any additional use of the property and it avoids the problem of opening up the area for other industrial land uses if the I-L zone is established and then the use is terminated. This being the time and the place as advertised, and persons being present wishing to testify, the public hearing was opened. John Gardner, 753 Rocha Road, Chula Vista, said he and his partner had leased a parcel from SDG&E; were operating a toy storage facility and are seeking to acquire another parcel from SDG&E for similar usage. He indicated that the stored vehicles are basically of a wheeled nature, such as cabin cruisers on belts, but are not necessarily restricted to camping vehicles only. He volunteered that the phrase "and the like" might describe the three amphibious World War II "ducks" that are parked on the site. In response to questions he replied that the area was zoned I-L-P (Limited Industrial). MSUC (Tugenberg/Shipe) to continue for 2 weeks leaving the Public Hearing open for further comments to enable the Planning Department to clarify the description of recreational vehicles. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director of Planning Krempl noted that background material for the next workshop and been distributed to the Commissions. A presentation would be given by staff from the City of San Diego, as well as from SANDAG, and would address San Diego's activities on the Otay Mesa as well as the overall comprehensive traffic study underway for the South Bay areas. As the workshop is a dinner meeting, he asked the Secretary to poll the Commission for those who would be attending the dinner portion. Commissioners Shipe, Tugenberg, Cannon and Carson indicated they would attend; Grasser, undecided. COMMISSION COMMENTS - none ADJOURNMENT AT 9:4D p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 20. 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Ruth M. Smith, Recording Secretary WPC 3126P