The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/07/08 A G E N D A City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 8, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed 5 minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Variance ZAV-87-28M: Request to reduce number of required parking spaces for an office building and warehouse located at 1650 Industrial Boulevard - RTA International 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCZ-87-L: Consideration to rezone 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Flower Street and Jefferson Avenue from C-T to R-3 - Appel Development Company 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-35M: Request for a recreational vehicle storage lot within utility easement property owner by S.D.G. & E. located at 1450 Jayken Way - Toy Storage 4, PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-42: Request to construct an 86-unit senior citizen apartment project located on the south side of Davidson Street between Ash and Beech Avenues - Joseph M. Burkhart 5. OTHER BUSINESS: Library Master Plan Request for waiver of RCT fees - South Bay Pioneers 270 'C' Street DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of July 15, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Planning Director SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of July 8, 1987 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-28M: Request to reduce required number of parkin§ spaces from 375 to 152 spaces for warehouse and office at 1650 Industrial Avenue - RTA International (Continued) The applicant, RTA International, has submitted an alternate parking solution providing the required 375 parking spaces on site, which has been approved by staff. Accordingly, RTA has withdrawn their request for a zoning variance as the request to reduce required parking spaces is no longer necessary. MOM & A OGIATI= LAND PLANNING · ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING · SLIRVEYING 4877 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123-1667 · (619) 278-5750 June 25, 1987 Ms. Julie Schilling City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 Subject: RTA Variance ZAV-87-28H HCH&A Job #10212 Dear Julie: On behalf of RTA International, we are requesting a withdrawal of variance ZAV-87-28M. As you know, the Planning Director granted our request for a temporary parking lot which allows RTA to move forward and obtain an occupancy permit. Therefore, the variance for the Montgomery Parking Standards is not necessary at this time. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Sincerely, HCH & Associates AGA: ab City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCZ-87-L Consideration to rezone 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Flower Street and Jefferson Avenue from C-T to R-3 Appel Development company A. BACKGROUND This is a request to rezone 2.6 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Flower Street and Jefferson Avenue from C-T (Thoroughfare commercial) to R-3 (Multiple family residential). The item was continued from the meeting of June 24, 1987, to consider the attachment of the 'P' modifier and a density limitation on the basic R-3 request. The Commission had earlier voted 5-2 (Commissioners Carson and Fuller voting no) to recommend approval of the companion request, GPA-87-2, to amend the General Plan from Commercial Thoroughfare to High Density Residential (13-26 du/ac). B. RECOMMENDATION In consideration of the Commission's prior approval of the companion General Plan amendment, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone for 2.6 acres at the southeast corner of Flower Street and Jefferson Avenue from C-T to R-3-P-22 with a height limit of two-stories and setbacks of 25 ft. along both streets. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3 Single-family dwellings South C-T Multi-family and Trailer park East C-T Commercial West C-V-P Elementary school Existing site characteristics. The site measures 300 ft. by 380 ft. (2.6 acres) and formerly contained a car storage facility. The majority of the property is open asphalt-paving encircled by a chain link fence. Two structures are located on the southeasterly portion of the site. General plan. The General Plan shows the property as Thoroughfare Commercial. The Commission has recommended an amendment to High Density Residential (13-26 du/ac). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS The application of the basic R-3 zone to the property would allow the site to accommodate approximately 80 units (32 du/ac) in a structure or structures 3-1/2 stories or 45 ft. in height. The site plan and architecture of the project would be subject to approval of the Design Review Committee. The 'P' Precise Plan modifying district can be applied to the basic R-3 zone to limit the otherwise allowable density and attach any further development standards or limitations deemed appropriate to ensure compatibility with adjacent areas. In the present case, the site is abutting an area which is zoned R-3 but which consists of small lots developed with single and two-family dwellings and small apartments. The neighborhood in question -- the area between Flower and "D" Street and east of Woodlawn Avenue -- contains 154 dwelling units on 12.29 net acres for a present overall net density of 13 du/ac. Since the vast majority of lots are 6,500 sq. ft. or less, the most restrictive R-3 density standards apply. Consequently, the area can accommodate at most 109 additional dwelling units for a potential overall net density of 21.4 du/ac. The mobilehome park located to the west of Woodlawn Avenue and served by the same local streets is developed at 16 du/ac. Because of the small-lot pattern of the neighborhood it will take many years to transition to predominantly multiple family use, and will remain a low-profile area of small apartments and dwelling groups well below the maximum potential under the existing R-3 zone. We believe it would be inappropriate to authorize a large apartment complex at 32 du/ac in this setting. The recommendation, therefore, is to limit the density to 22 dwelling units per acre, with a height limit of two-stories. These limits are consistent with the potential, if not existing, character of the area and will help ensure that structural bulk and activity levels will not overpower the neighborhood. An additional recommendation is to require setbacks of 25 ft. along Flower Street and Jefferson Avenue. The Building Line Map has established these setbacks at 5 ft. for the site, but requires frontyard setbacks of 20-25 ft. for adjacent residential areas {the Municipal Code requires a 15 ft. setback for R-3 zoning on streets not designated on the Building Line Map). The 25 ft. setback requirement would also help to ameliorate the impact of development. WPC 3997P/1681P IFEASTER IELEMENTARY I I I E STREET I I I [ r I I I · I I ~ I " I I [ I I ~. I ~ I I I I f I o ' I I o i I i I o I _L ~ I . I ,,,,I ,, CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF C£RTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLiCATiONS I 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. Bert and Bob Investment Co. , Appel Development Corporation List the names of a11 persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Bert, & Bob Investment Co. Appel Development Corporation 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 the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Bert Epstein Steve Aooel Bob Epstein Dan Ao~el 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 t~ustee 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 xx If yes, please indicate person(s) i defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnershto, ~oint venture c,ub, fraternal organization, corporation~ estate~ t~ust, receive~'~e"~ I Ith!~.~nd any other county, city and county, ?ty, municipality, ~istrtct or other I polttical subdivision, or any other group or~a-~n acting as ~ un,t." / (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.~,/~ ~' /~ WPC 0 701P ' ~.llA ~ , Bnr~f~ld. Ap~e~opmen~ Corporation ~ ''~ ~r]nt or type name 0f applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-35M; request to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard on leased property within the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way at 145D Jayken Way John Gardner and William Gretler - (Continued) A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard on 3.3 acres within the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way on the west side of Broadway south of Palomar Street. An Initial Study, IS-87-43M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on March 20, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of April l, 1987, voted to recommend that the Planning Commission continue the applicant's request until January 1, 1988, or deny the application without prejudice, as stated in the Recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-43M. 2. Adopt a motion to continue the applicant's request for an RV storage yard at this location until January l, 1988, or implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever date comes first, or deny the request without prejudice. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin~ and land use North M-52 Residence, church, restaurant, crops South M-52/C-36 Industrial park, mixed use commercial residential development East S-94, M-52, C-36 RV storage lot, auto repair center West S-94 Utility easement right-of-way Existing site characteristics The project site is a 3.3 acre vacant parcel with electric utility towers supporting lines stretched along the length of the property through the mid portion of the lot. The land has been previously used as crop land. Primary access to the site is taken from Jayken Way, a 52-foot industrial street that terminates at the southwest boundary of the property. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 2 Proposed use The applicant proposes to pave and fence the 3.3 acre parcel to establish a 284 space RV storage lot with a commercial coach to serve as an office for the lot. A total of ll parking spaces would be provided on-site in a customer parking area to be located at the terminus of Jayken Way, a landscape strip is proposed to surround the customer parking area. Similar establishments An RV storage lot is located within the San Diego Gas and Electric Company right-of-way on the east side of Broadway approximately 500 feet from the project site. The RV storage lot was established illegally without approval of a major use permit. D. ANALYSIS The proposed project request comes before the Planning Commission while a new specific plan is currently being drafted for the entire Montgomery area. One of the goals of the draft plan includes "encouragement of park and recreation uses within the San Diego Gas and Electric rights-of-way." The recreation use described in this goal stands in direct conflict with the RV storage use proposed by the applicant. The project site is directly adjacent to other industrial and commercial uses. However, RV storage lots and other open storage facilities are located throughout the Montgomery area, and an over concentration of this particular land use appears evident. Staff is of the opinion that it is inappropriate to consider the request at this time until the plan currently being drafted specifies the nature of the long-term uses permitted at that location, and the desirability of permitting additional open storage uses in Montgomery. In addition to the issue of long-term land uses, the Engineering Department has indicated that Jayken Way is a developed roadway up to the southern boundary of the property, then is an undeveloped right-of-way along the western property boundary of the project site north to Pal omar Street. Adjacent property owners have submitted an application for vacation of the street from the terminus of the developed portion to Pal omar. The Engineering Department has indicated that they cannot support the proposed project as designed until a decision is rendered on the vacation application. Once the decision is made, then redesign of the site would be required to accommodate either a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the developed portion of Jayken Way, or continuation of the street north to Palomar Street, through the subject property. It is for these reasons that staff is recommending continuance of the request to January 1, 1988, or implementation of the Specific Plan whichever occurs first. The project can be continued with concurrence of the applicant or denied without prejudice with the proviso that the applicant may refile the request at the appropriate time noted above. WPC 3731P OMA ' ~ . MARSAT,CT..~ R.U.2! ' I I LOCATOR PCC-87-35M 1450 JAYKEN WAY -. negative declaration PROJECT )~AME: Toy Storage Extension PROJECT LOCATION: 1450 Jayken Way PROJECT APPLICANT: John Gardner and William Gretler CASE NO: IS 87-43M DATE: March 20, 1987 A. Project Setting The project site is a 3.3 acre vacant parcel with electric utility towers supporting lines stretched along the length of the property through the mid portion of the lot. The land has been previously used as crop land. Primary access to the site is taken from Jayken Way, a 52-foot industrial street that terminates at the southwest boundary of the property. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to pave and fence the 3.3 acre parcel to establish a 284 space RV storage lot with a commercial coach to serve as an office for the lot. A total of ll parking spaces would be provided on-site in a customer parking area to be located at the terminus of Jayken Way, a landscape strip is proposed to surround the customer parking area. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans With granting of a major use permit, the proposed project is compatible with the S-94 transportation and utility corridor zone, as long as no permanent structures are placed on site. The proposed project is also currently compatible with the Research and Limited land use designation in the Chula Vista General Plan.. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The RV storage yard, under current plans and standards, contains no adverse environmental effects of a significant nature. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The RV storage yard, as proposed, is surrounded by other industrial and commercial uses and therefore does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The RV storage lot has no effect upon either short term or long term environmental goals designated for this area. city of chula vista planning department ¢I1YOF environmental review section_CHUJ.~ vL~rA;, 3. Since the proposed sto~age lot has no adverse significant environmental 'effects, the project will not result in any cumulative environmental impacts. 4. The proposed RV storage lot has no adverse environmental effects, and therefore will not cause adverse environmental impacts on human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents 1. Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Muncipal Code 2. General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3. IS 87-2 Zoning Text Amendment, Recreation Vehicle Storage 4. IS 87-17 Toy Storage, 1140 Walnut Avenue 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 Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. WPC 3738P/O175P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) '" city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHtJLAVISI'A,. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'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. John W. Gardner III William Gretler Elizabeth P. Gardner Janet M. Gretler List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. San Die§o Gas and Electric 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. John W. Gardner III William Gretl~ Elizabeth P. Gardner Janet M. Gretler 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) IPerson i~ defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social cJub, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any .other county, city and county, city, municipality, d~strict 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 John W. Gardner Ill A-110 ~rint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-42; request to construct an 86-unit apartment project for senior citizens on the south side of Davidson Street between Ash and Beech Avenues - Joseph M. Burkhart A. BACKGROUND This item is a request to construct an 86-unit apartment project for senior citizens on 1.65 acres located on the south side of Davidson Street between Ash and Beech Avenues in the R-3 zone. The Municipal Code allows for exceptions from the normal zoning standards for housing developments reserved for low and moderate income seniors upon the approval of a conditional use permit. An Initial Study, IS-87-65, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on June 25, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-65. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council deny PCC-87-42. 3. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the project, we recommend the following conditions of approval: a. The project shall contain no more than 79 units (50% density bonus). b. Off-street parking shall be provided at the rate of 1:1 for one-bedroom units and 1.5:1 for two-bedroom units, with no more than 10% compact spaces. c. The three parking spaces off Davidson Street shall be removed. d. Two public fire hydrants shall be provided subject to approval of the Fire Marshal. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin9 and land use North - R-1 - Single-family South - R-3 - Convalescent facility East - R-3 - Single, two & multi-family West - R-3 - Multi-family City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 2 Existing site characteristics The project site totals 1.65 acres with 240 ft. of frontage on Davidson Street and 300 ft. of frontage on both Ash and Beech Avenues. The property presently contains seven older single-family dwellings. Proposed use The project consists of 48 one-bedroom and 38 two-bedroom senior rental units within a single U-shaped three-story structure. The building is oriented to the north toward Davidson Street and surrounds an interior courtyard containing passive landscaped areas, a recreation/office structure, and a swimming pool. Off-street parking is provided for 84 cars to the south of the building, and includes 66 open spaces and 18 garage spaces incorporated into the rear of the structure. Three additional guest spaces are provided off Davidson adjacent to the recreation/office building. Of the 87 total spaces, 22 or 25% are compacts. Interior corridors will provide access to the units, which range in size from approximately 500-900 sq. ft. The application indicates that each unit will have a 60 sq. ft. patio or 80 sq. ft. balcony, with 160 cu. ft. of storage per unit. The total combined private and common open space is calculated at more than 28,000 sq. ft., or 330 sq. ft. per unit. The building is stepped-back from Davidson Street with setbacks of approximately 15', 40' and 80' from property line for the first, second and third stories respectively. The greatest portion of the third story maintains a 40 ft. setback from property line along Ash and Beech, while the setback for the first, second and balance of the third story varies from 15-20 ft. Security would be provided by stucco fencing fronted with landscaping around the entire perimeter of the site with security gates at the entries to the building and parking area. The proposal involves the following exceptions from the underlying R-3 standards: an increase in density from 53 to 86 units (an increase of 33 units or plus 62%); a decrease in off-street parking from 155 to 87 spaces (minus 68 spaces or 44%), with 25% compact spaces rather than the allowed by Code; a decrease in required open space from 400 to 330 sq. ft. per unit (minus 18%); and, an increase in maximum building height from 45 to 47 feet. The project would be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee. D. ANALYSIS The ability to grant exceptions from the normal zoning standards for senior housing developments is in recognition that residents of such developments often have dwelling characteristics which differ from other City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 3 groups, such as the need for less living space and parking accommodations, and the generation of less traffic, noise and urban activity. The program also facilitates the development of affordable rental housing for seniors of modest means. The City has an adopted senior housing policy which requires such projects to be maintained for the exclusive use of low and moderate income seniors (60 yrs. of age or older) for at least 25 years. At present, the senior housing policy provides no development guidelines or locational criteria for senior projects. Each application has generally been considered on its own merits as perceived at that point in time and without a great deal of experience from which to draw. Consequently, there has been inconsistency in the exceptions granted and the greatest exception has a tendency to become the rule for the next request. Based on such concerns, and also because of a perceived over-concentration of senior projects in the downtown-Civic Center area, the City Council placed a 180 day moratorium on accepting applications for density bonus projects until the issues could be studied with input from the Commission on Aging and with staff work jointly shared by the Departments of Planning and Community Development. The moratorium has since expired and the staff work has yet to be completed because of overriding priorities. In the meantime, staff has discouraged density bonus applications. It appears that a study can be completed within the next two months. We hope to report on a completion schedule at the Commission hearing. The applicant has been informed of staff's position and likely time frame for completion of the study, but has nevertheless decided to proceed forward to Council with the project. A density bonus project is an extraordinary request subject to findings which we believe cannot be made pending a fuller resolution of the issues. As a result, we have recommended denial of the application. An alternative recommendation for approval has been included should the Commission choose to endorse the proposal. The following analysis is based on the experience gained to date with senior density bonus projects. It should be noted that the plans have been accepted without the normal detail because of staff's basic position opposing any density bonus project at this time. Enough information is presented, however, for the Commission to recommend conditional approval subject to refinement by the Design Review Committee. The issue of increased density involves questions of structural mass or bulk, traffic and parking, and the general levels of noise and urban activity generated by an increased concentration of people. Senior projects generally have smaller, one-bedroom units with fewer persons per household, and seniors generally own fewer vehicles, generate less traffic, and create less noise and activity than younger households of equal size. Ideally, a senior density bonus project would create no more visual or activity impacts than a standard density project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 4 Under the basic R-3 zone, the property can accommodate 53 units, while the request is for 86 units -- an increase of 33 units or plus 62%. In recent years, five projects have been approved by the City with density bonuses ranging from 28% to 93%. Generally, staff has favored the projects that exceed the underlying density by no more than 50%. The reason for this is that the typical senior unit contains one-bedroom and approximately 550 sq. ft. of floor area, while the standard rental unit contains two-bedrooms and approximately 800 sq. ft. of floor area -- a difference in floor area of approximately 50%. The result being that the structural mass for a 50% density bonus project will approximate that for a standard project. In order to meet the 50% figure, the project would have to be reduced by seven units. In contrast to most senior projects, however, the proposal in question includes 38 larger two-bedroom floor plans containing as much as 900 sq. ft. of floor area. Consequently, even at the 50% bonus level, the structural bulk is greater than would normally be encountered with a standard project. The architect has partially addressed this issue by off-setting the upper stories, particularly from the R-1 area to the north, but also from the R-3 areas to the west and east. A reduction of seven units would allow for a further reduction in building mass. The R-3 standards would require the 86 units to be served by 155 off-street parking spaces based on 1.5 spaces for each one-bedroom unit and 2.0 spaces for each two-bedroom unit. The proposal is to provide 87 spaces or approximately one space per unit, including 25% compact spaces. The parking issue has probably been the most difficult to resolve with prior projects. The City has approved ratios varying from 0.45 per unit to 0.83 per unit. At one time many jurisdictions believed that 1/2 space per unit was adequate. This was later increased to 3/4 space per unit, and now many communities are using a l:l ratio for one-bedroom senior units. Generally, we are now looking at ratios which would require 1 space for each one-bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit, or 105 spaces for the 86 units. These ratios can be achieved by either expanding the parking area or reducing the number of two bedroom units. The site is fortunate to have substantial street frontage to accommodate overflow and guest parking. Additional concerns are the three guest spaces on Davidson Street and the large percentage of compact spaces. Parking should not be situated so as to require backing onto the street, and a large number of compact spaces can create circulation problems and is not desirable in light of the overall reduction in spaces. Also it is our experience that most seniors drive larger rather than smaller cars. Thus no more than 10% compact spaces can be recommended, and the three guest spaces should be deleted. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 5 The proposal includes a reduction in the total open space from 400 to 330 sq. ft. per unit. In most previous cases, the City has approved a reduction in the overall ratio provided that adequate private open space is available for each unit, and the proposal is for each unit to be provided with a 60 sq. ft. patio or 80 sq. ft. balcony. These figures are consistent with the City's Design Manual standards for R-3 development. The project also includes a central courtyard which is convenient to the units and well protected from outside disturbances. The question has been raised whether or not senior projects should provide a greater rather than lesser amount of on-site open space than the typical multiple-family project, and what additional site amenities, if any, should be provided for seniors. These issues will be addressed in the senior projects study with input from the Commission on Aging. The final requested exception for the project is an increase in building height from 45 to 47 ft. This occurs at the peak of the third story roof and does not in and of itself represent a concern to staff. The entire question of three-story development has been an emerging issue, however, and is of particular significance with regard to bonus projects. Three-story development will be the subject of an upcoming staff study. The issues of the proper location for senior projects in relation to public facilities and services, and the distribution/concentration of such projects, will be addressed in the upcoming study. The site is approximately 1/8 mile walking distance from a convenience store and local/regional bus stop. The closest supermarket is approximately 1/4 mile walking distance on the south side of "E" Street west of Broadway. the public library and Civic Center are approximately 1/2 mile walking distance from the site. WPC 4036P/2652P f'-LOCATOR -87-42 SOUTH SIDE OF DAVlDSON ~,.BETWEEN ASH & BEECH AVE. negative- declaration PROJECT NAME: Burkhart Senior Housing PROJECT LOCATION: Between Ash Avenue and Beec~ Avenue, sou~h of 6dvidsU~l Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Joseph M. Burkhart c/o 625 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-87-65 DATE: June 26, 1987 A. Project Setting. The pr6ject site consists of 1.65 acres of relatively flat property located b~tween Ash Avenue and Beech Avenue, and south of Davidson Street. A total of seven single-family dwellings exist on the project site in addition to a paved area previously utilized for parking for the adjacent land use. Single-family dwellings are located across Davidson Street to the north, multi-family across Ash Avenue to the west, and mixed residential land uses across Beech Avenue to the east. A convalescent facility presently exists to the south. There are no significant plant nor animal species located on the urbanized site and there are no known geological hazards known to exist in the project vicinity. B. Project Description. The project consists of a senior housing development with 86 units, 52 one bedroom and 34 two bedrooms. ~he structure would be a combination of one, two and three stories in height. An office/recreation room and swimming pool are also proposed. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans This type of use is unclassified and requires the granting of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. In reviewing such a proposal, the Planning Commission and City Council may modify standards and requirements for parking, open space, density, etc. if the project is available for occupancy by seniors only. Subject to the issuance of the conditional use permit, the project will conform to the zoning and plans for the property. city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF environmental review section CHUL~ VISTA -2- n Td~n~cm~nn nf Fnv~rnnm~ntal Effects In accordance with the Initial Study of this project, the only potential adverse environmental effect of the project would be due to the possible presence of expansive soils on the site. Standard development regulations will require the preparation of a soils report with recommendations to mitigate any adverse effects. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is _determined that standard development regulations will mitigate any adverse effects and that the project will not result in a significant environmental effect. 1. The project will not adversely affect any natural or man-made 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 environment or curtail the range of the environment which supports the biosystem. Any adverse soil conditions will be avoided through standard development regulations. 2. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of the City of Chula Vista and will not therefore attain short term to the disadvantage of long range goals. 3. The project will not provide any system that could support secondary development that would cumulate to a level of being substantial and adverse nor do any of the insignificant impacts interact to a significant level. 4. The project will not result in the generation of any significant noise, air pollution, light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to the welfare nor health of any human being. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Hedencamp & Associates 1331 India Street San Diego, CA 92101 -3- 2. Documents 1 ) IS-82-1 2) IS-83-20 3) Chula Vista Municipal Code 4) Chula Vista General Plan 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 Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. E~VIRON~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 4035P/O175P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section CHULAVIS[A. CITY OF CNULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STAT[~NT PPLiCA:~T,S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWIIERSHIP INTE"ESTS OM ALL APPLICATION$ HI?~ WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL. PLANNING O[.t-lISSION 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. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. '" ).' )f'~q~ person identified pursuant to il) above is a non-profit organization or ~ trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit .... ~ ion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. ~.,'e you had ~ore th~n $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City ' staff, Boards, Con~nissions, Co~raittees and Council within 'the past twelve months?. Yes )Io '~' If yes, please indicate person(s) [F~:n is defined a~: "Any individual, firm~¢?~r~ner~' J°i~t venture' ass°c~t?n' ) ~ -, ~ fraternal organization, corporat~6~, trust, recetver, syndicate, sec'J) ~,u~,.. _~ ..... ~ count" city municipality, district or other + ' an other county, cl~y ~nu x, ~, . .h~s and Y , , · i · political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a. un t. . (~OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~) ' ,q ,,, ~?i ~- '' ~gnat~re of &pplicantYdate ... WPC O701P Print or type name of Ippltcan: A-1 lO City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1987 Page 1 5. REPORT: Request for waiver of RCT fees South Bay Pioneers, 270 "C" Street A. BACKGROUND The South Bay Pioneers have requested that the City Council waive over $13,000 in fees associated with the construction of their 18-unit residential recovery facility at 270 "C" Street. Waiver of the $4,500 Residential Construction Tax (RCT) first requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council waive the RCT for the South Bay Pioneers. C. DISCUSSION The RCT is assessed against residential projects in order to fund public facilities and infrastructure necessitated by the increase in population. The tax for the Pioneers is $250 per unit, or $4,500 for the 18-unit project. City staff has recommended approval of the total requested waiver based on Council's previous actions in waiving fees for public service groups such as Starlight Center and the Boys & Girls Club. Also, the City has allotted $160,000 in Block Grant funds for improvements to "C" Street which would otherwise be the responsibility of the Pioneers. Thus it would seem inconsistent with this action to now assess the $4,500 RCT. WPC 4029P