HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/06/11 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 11, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of April 23, 1986
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of Variance ZAV-86-26: Request to
increase lot coverage for design considerations,
165 Murray Street - J. Anthony Raso
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-33: Request permission
to construct self serve gas station and mini-market
at the southwest corner of East 'H' Street and the
main entrance to the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center -
Shell Oil Company
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-86-D: Consideration to prezone approximately
62 acres of territory located southeasterly of the
terminus of Mace Street and extending inasouth-
easterly direction to the north facing slopes of the
Otay Valley
4. Consideration of a request initiating a zoning text amendment to include
used car sales in I-L zone - Damco Used Trucks
5. Consideration of a request initiating a zoning text amendment to allow
the use of vehicle storage on R-3 property to be
considered in a conditional use permit application -
Toy Storage
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of June 18, 1986 at
5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Reconsideration of Variance ZAV-86-26; Request to
increase lot coverage from 40% and to increase the
number o~ stories at lbb Murray Street - J. Anthony
Raso
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to increase the allowable lot coverage
from 40% to 61% and to increase the allowable number of stories from
2.5 to 3.0 for the single-family dwelling at 165 Murray Street in the
R-1 zone.
2. On April 23, 1986, the Planning Commission denied the variance by a
vote of 5-0, with one absent and one abstention. On May 6, 1986, the
City Council unanimously upheld the Commission and denied the
variance, but further moved to reconsider the item following an offer
by the applicant to modify the design of the dwelling.
3. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Deny the variance request for the increase in the number of stories;
Ueny as filed the lot coverage variance request for 61 percent but approve
a variance for 46.2% lot coverage subject to the following:
1. The existing 20' x 65' accessory structure located at the rear of the
lot shall be removed.
2. The maximum height of the dwelling shall not exceed 30 ft. measured
from the highest point of the roof.
3. The exterior design of the dwelling shall be reviewed and approved by
the Chula Vista Design Review Committee.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Single-family dwelling
South R-1 Single-family dwelling
East R-1 Single-family dwelling
West R-1 Single-family dwelling
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 2
Existing site characteristics.
The property in question is a level, rectangular, single-family lot
containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of area and measuring 65 ft. x 135.76 ft. The
parcel is surrounded by R-1 lots of similar size in a stable single-family
neighborhood.
Proposed request.
This application has been filed in order to accommodate an expanded single
family dwelling and detached accessory building on the lot in question.
The three-story, 9,767 sq. ft. single family dwelling (which has al ready
been framed and sheathed) would cover 4,085 sq. ft. or 46.2% of the lot.
The third story has resulted due to the installation of flooring and
direct stair access within the otherwise defined attic space. The
existing single-story accessory building located at the rear of the lot
(20'x65') covers 1,300 sq. ft. or an additional 14.7% of the lot. The
applicant has submitted modified building elevations which lowers the roof
height from 42' to 30'. The modified design is scheduled for Design
Review Committee consideration on June 5, 1986, and therefore, any
recommendation by the Design Review Committee will be presented verbally
at the Planning Commission hearing.
D. ANALYSIS
Lot coverage and height restrictions have been established in order to
control the size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of
property. In the case of single-family parcels, these standards were
established at 40% lot coverage and 2.5 stories or 35 feet in height.
(Measured to the mean of a pitched roof.)
These bulk standards, along with setback restrictions, are designed to
allow ample interior residential living space, while, at the same time,
limiting the size and location of structures consistent with the light,
air, privacy, and open space standards and aesthetic values which have
come to be expected in R-1 single-family residential living environments.
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 June ll, 1986 Page 3
The property under consideration is a level and rectangular 65'x135.76'
R-1 parcel containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of lot area. The parcel exceeds the
present lot size and width requirements for standard R-1 lots (7,000 sq.
ft. in area and 60 ft. in width), and is surrounded by R-1 lots of like
size in a stable R-1 single-family neighborhood. Under the present R-1
lot coverage and height restrictions, this parcel can accommodate a single
story footprint containing 3,529.7 sq. ft. of coverage or a two-story
dwelling containing 7,059.4 sq ft. The attic space may not be provided
with a floor or direct stair access which would qualify this area as an
additional story.
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 R-1
zone lot coverage and height restrictions, and in this sense, the granting
of the variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other
properties in the same zone and vicinity.
It is also true, however, that the R-1 height regulations allow for a
structure height of 2.5 stories or 35 ft. as measured to the midpoint
between the eves and the ridge of the roof. Although the dwelling in
question is 42 ft. high, it meets this latter standard, and it violates
the 2.5 story standard only by virtue of the existence of flooring within,
and direct stair access to, the attic space. Thus the dwelling could be
made to conform with the applicable height regulations simply by removing
the attic flooring and direct stair access without any reduction in its
present height.
It has further been shown that modifications to the proposal to meet the
40% lot coverage standard could also be made with little, if any,
reduction in the bulk of the dwelling. These modifications would include
removal of the single-story accessory structure at the rear of the lot --
reducing the lot coverage from 61% to 46% -- and either the removal of 10
ft. off the rear of the structure or opening-up the buildings interior to
achieve the additional 6% reduction in coverage. In essence, then, the
dwelling could be made to conform with both the height and coverage
standards without reducing its bulk or adverse impact on the neighborhood.
When these circumstances became apparent at the Council hearing, and the
applicant indicated a willingness to remove the accessory structure,
reduce the hei§ht of the dwellin§ and work with the Desi§n Review
Committee on questions of exterior design, it was deemed to be in the best
interest of the neighborhood to work with the applicant to achieve a
compromise solution which would allow the footprint of the dwelling to
remain at 46% lot coverage based on lowering the roof height below that
which the original building permit plans and zoning ordinance authorized.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 4
The question thus becomes, should there be rigid adherence to the
standards, or should a compromise be allowed which will reduce the height
of the structure and improve its exterior design and thereby ameliorate
the adverse impact or "hardship," on the neighborhood.
The proposed compromise would lower the roof height from 42 ft. to 30 ft.
in exchange for retaining the 46% lot coverage versus the 40% provided for
in the R-1 zone. As reported earlier in this report, additional changes
in the exterior design of the dwelling to reduce its apparent bulk will be
considered by the Design Review Committee on June 5 and reported on orally
at the Commission hearing. The City Council will reconsider the variance
on June 17.
This action would not be precedent setting since the problems brought to
light by this and other projects has resulted in the adoption of a floor
area ratio ordinance and a 28 ft. (total) height limit in the R-1 zone.
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.
The hardship in this instance must be viewed from the neighborhood's
perspective. The property could be made to conform with the 40% lot
coverage requirement, but this would not lower the height or reduce
the bulk of the dwelling. The granting of this variance as
conditioned, on the other hand, will reduce the height of the
structure by 12 ft. and result in exterior design changes that will
further reduce its apparent bulk. These changes will relieve the
hardship that the presence of this massive and overwhelming structure
has on the light, air, privacy and sensibilities of neighboring
resi dents.
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 granting of this variance will help ensure for neighboring
properties the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity.
As a consequence of the granting of this variance, the recipient will
relinquish the privilege of maintaining the height of the dwelling at
42 ft. as allowed by Code and will reduce the height to 30 ft. in
exchange for the privilege of an increase in lot coverage from 40% to
46%.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 5
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the
purposes of this chapter or the public interest.
The granting of this variance will be of substantial benefit to
adjacent properties and consistent with the purposes of this chapter
and the public interest in that it will result in a reduction of the
bulk of the dwelling which would otherwise not occur.
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 granting of this variance is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan as they relate to the visual quality
and liveability of single family neighborhoods.
WPC 2744P/O426P
':!: "1" - STREET
:L~..:. t ___ ._.L. .F ~ :,, I ID
-- -- T .... I I ,I I I ~ i, I --~
,. 1 ~;--~--~
-- - 1 ;,%s,
lA 1647 I SmAle ~mil~ D~el ~gs I
...... ~1 I F~ ~ ~ ~
-- ~--I-- -- -- ~ 657 SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF
i~ ..... 1 ~ I8F I® 11871® I® I'67
-- KING
11~6I
~2:[ I ZAV-86-26
[/~!~ ~' ~'~ ~ ~ , ~ I
':' "1" .- STREET
I I I I I I I
I I i -'1. I l: I
_ J_. fL-- ,
-J .~ MITSCHER , ST,
..... I ' II J
[
', I I I I: I J
I I i I
-~ HALSEY ST.
~J~ m HALS EY ·
I
'5"'
~ ~ I I I I I I T~
I:Jo mil.~/ D~elliJgs
MURRAY
i ] I I I
L_
KING ST.
I I I I
I
I l_
[ , I ] [ --I- -1- ~- -~- -t-
i I I ,I t I I I i I I I I I I
I I ' I I I I ~ ~ I I I I J I I
I I I I
[ I I I I I I I
STREET
I
I I f
L I I---
City Planning Commiss
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-86-33; request to construct
self serve gas station and mini-market at the
southwest corner of East 'H' Street and the main
entrance to the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center
Shell Oil Company
A. BACKGROUND
This item involves a request by Shell Oil Company to construct a 24-hour
self service gas station and mini-market on .98 acres located on the
southwest corner of East 'H' Street and the main entrance to the Terra
Nova Plaza Shopping Center.
EIR-79-8 (Hidden Vista Village) and Addendum "B" have been previously
prepared and discuss potential impacts of the proposed project.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Recertify EIR-79-8 and Addendum "B".
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-86-33, to construct a self-serve
gas station and mini-market at the southwest corner of East 'H'
Street and the main entrance to the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center
subject to the condition that development of the site shall comply
with the plan approved or conditionally approved by the Design Review
Committee (Reference PCM-86-28).
C. DISCUSSION
Existin~ site characteristics
The project site consists of a vacant pad (Parcel No. 16) fronting on East 'H'
Street, within the Terra Nova Plaza Shopping Center, at the southeast quadrant
of 1-805 and East 'H' Street. The site is located approximately ll feet below
the level of East 'H' Street and at the southwest corner of the main entrance
to the shopping center.
The approved Master Plan for the shopping center designates the site in
question for a 4,500 sq. ft. fast food restaurant or commercial building.
Thus, the request for a service station requires the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
Proposed use
The project consists of the construction of a self service gas station and
mini-market on the .98 acre parcel. The 725 sq. ft. mini-market would occupy
the central portion of the site with canopied pump islands to the north and
south of this structure. Nine on-site parking spaces are provided and access
to the site is on the south, off a circulation drive internal to the shopping
center.
City Planning Commiss. ,
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 2
The mini-market would sell automobile accessories, magazines, and various food
items and beverages, including beer and wine for off-site consumption. The
station would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
D. ANALYSIS
The Zoning Ordinance (Section 19.58.280) outlines certain conditions which
must be met in order to approve a service station. These include a clear need
based on public convenience, no creation of traffic hazards or undue
congestion, location at a major intersection or within a shopping center, and
no nuisance to residences or other surrounding uses.
The project appears to meet all of these conditions. It is located within a
shopping center in an area not currently served by a gas station. It is well
separated from residential areas and the operation should complement rather
than conflict with adjacent commercial uses within the center. Access to the
site is situated so as not to interfere with circulation within the center,
and this use is actually projected to generate 1,475 fewer avera§e daily trips
than would a fast food restaurant as authorized by the Master Plan.
The site plan and design of the proposal will be addressed by the Design
Review Committee on June 5. Staff is supporting these aspects of the proposal
wi th only a few recommendations regarding minor design details.
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.
The service station will provide a convenient location to serve the
needs of the developing East 'H' Street/I-805 area. There are no
other service stations in the immediate area to serve the surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
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 site is well separated from adjacent residential areas and should
complement other commercial uses within the shopping center. The
service station is projected to generate substantially less traffic
than uses permitted by right under the approved Master Plan.
City Planning Commiss ,~ Page 3
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposal complies with all conditions specified in the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 19.58.280) for service stations. Compliance with
all applicable codes, regulations and conditions will be required
prior to the issuance of development permits for the project.
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 General Plan recognizes the need for service station facilities
at appropriate locations convenient to the motoring public. The
proposal in question is such a facility.
WPC 2865P/2652P
SMOKY
Con dom)nlu m $
Project
Terro Nov~
Shopp/ng Cenfer
ME
Open Spoce
t
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RICE CANYON SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA - EIR-79-8
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rice Canyon SPA is the initial phase of the E1 Rancho
del Rey Specific Plan Area. The owner/developer of the property
has applied the name Hidden Vista Village to the project. Some
of the references to the project, particularly in the technical
attachments, will refer to the project using the Hidden Vista
Village name. The project design is intended to be in accordance
with the land use prescribed for the project site. The mixed
residential and commercial development would occur at the
specified densities and locations established in the E1 Rancho
del Rey Plan.
The project is to be a planned community which would
integrate a number of land uses. Single-family and multi-family
dwellings would be built on either side of East H Street. East H
Street would be improved to the southeast corner of the project.
Within the residential area to the north of East H Street are
lots which would be improved and dedicated as sites for a fire
station, junior high school, elementary school, and park. South
of East ~ Street, land use would include a shopping center,
park-and-ride lot, recreation club, office space, and
multi-family dwellings. The possibility of low-cost housing in
the multi-family units exists.
While the project is substantially in conformance with the
zoning and planning for the project, implementation of the
project would result in a number of environmental effects.
Likewise, existing conditions on the property, i.e., fault
traces, would affect development. Mitigation does exist which,
as incorporated into project design, would substantially reduce
the impacts associated with the project. Despite the ability to
minimize the effect, many of the impacts cannot be completely
avoided.
Grading would have an adverse effect on the subject
property. Major landform modification would be necessary to
create the building sites. In the process of site preparation, a
number of large cut and fill banks would be created. The
aesthetic value of the project site would also be affected by
grading as natural topography is modified and natural vegetation
is removed. Grading would have the most effect on landform and
aesthetic characteristics of the project.
Geologic conditions present on the subject property could
also impact the proposed development. Seismic hazard would be
the principal geologic feature affecting future buildings and
occupants of the proposed Rice Canyon SPA. Several fault traces,
including the Sweetwater Fault Zone, have been found on the
project site. Although considered only potentially active, these
zones of weakness do present a hazard on the property should
earth movement occur along these zones. The impact can be
2
substantially reduced through setback or construction
regulations.
Several areas of expansive or alluvial soil exist on the
property. Standard grading and building code requirements would
mitigate potential effects of these soils on development.
The Rice Canyon SPA would increase the volume of surface
water runoff which could have an affect on-site and off-site.
Erosion and subsequent sedimentation of drainage structures
downstream could result. Although specific drainage control
within the project has not been designed, it is expected that
surface water can be collected and transported in a manner which
would avoid erosion.
Prehistoric archaeological resources do occur on the
property. Ail but two of theme sites are located in areas which
would be graded. These sites appear to be relatively small finds
which, if necessary, can easily be mitigated by a surface
collection, subsurface testing and micromapping program.
Urbanization of the Rice Canyon SPA would adversely affect the
existing biologic habitat. Grading would remove vegetation from
something less than three-quarters of the property. In the
process, portions of populations of sensitive plant species
identified in the biology survey may be destroyed.
Transformation of the natural habitat on the site would force
wildlife to retreat to undeveloped land within, and east of, the
project, thus increasing competition for food and range
limitations which would ultimately decrease populations. The
preservation of 125 acres with the project would partially
mitigate this impact. Further mitigation of clearing on specific
sensitive plants could be made through a transplanting program,
although these techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated for
their effectiveness.
The commercial and residential land uses proposed by the
project would generate a substantial amount of traffic. Streets
and intersections within the project have been designed to
adequately handle project-generated traffic. However,
limitations may become evident as traffic increases along the
Rice Canyon SPA circulation system with the completion of the
entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. The capacity of the
system can be improved by widening major streets in order to
accommodate future traffic volume generated off-site. Other
alternatives for alleviating traffic congestion include left-turn
lanes and a median opening at the northwest access point for the
commercial center.
3
The traffic generated by the project would increase air
pollutant emissions. Motor vehicle emissions are the major
source of air quality degradation. When viewed from a regional
perspective, the project would not significantly increase air
pollutants but would represent an imcremental increase. Several
features of the Rice Canyon SPA including: the park-and-ride
facility; proximity of schools and shopping; and bicycle paths;
would partially reduce the potential impact. State and Federal
laws are also expected to lower vehicular emissions.
Noise levels would be raised on the property following
development. Traffic would be the principal source. Interstate
805 would continue to produce high levels of noise. East H
Street, "Street K", and Ridgeback Road, would eventually carry
enough traffic to result in unacceptable noise. However,
unacceptable noise levels, as indicated by contours generated in
the noise analysis, would not be expected to significantly affect
residential areas.
Demand on local public services would increase as the
development phases are completed. Correspondence with the
various districts and companies responsible for providing these
services revealed a general ability to absorb the development
without significant effect on staff or facilities° However, the
local school districts and the Metropolitan Sewer District would
be significantly affected. Both the elementary and high school
district facilities are overcrowded. The students to be
generated by the project would further crowd the districts. Fees
would be assessed to the developer to provide temporary
facilities. In addition, dedicated school sites are proposed
within the Rice Canyon SPA. The Metropolitan Sewer District
indicates that it has no excess capacity. A new treatment
facility is planned by 1985; in the interim, the District is
contractually obligated to accept sewage from the property, but
its ability to process it could be uncertain.
The consumption of energy for construction,
transportation, commercial, and domestic purposes, would further
increase the demand for non-renewable resources. Available
mitigation to reduce this effect include: ca rpooling;
governmental regulation; energy-efficient appliances and
insulation; as well as incorporating alternative energy systems
such as solar.
ADDENDUM "B" TO EIR-?9-8, HIDDEN VISTA VILLAGE (TERRA NOVA PLAZA) 5-28-86
A. INTRODUCTION
The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and Section
15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines provide that when an EIR has been
completed, no additional EIR need be prepared unless one of the following
conditions exist:
1. Changes are proposed in the project which will involve new
significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken which involve significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR; or
3. New information which could identify significant environmental
impacts or measures which could reduce the severity of si~niflcant
environmental impacts have been identified and were not discussed in
the previous EIR.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an agency may prepare
an addendum to an glR when the above noted circumstances exist. This
document is to describe the proposed project revisions and evaluate any
potential impacts which could result and establishes the reasons that no
significant impacts would result from the project revisions. This
addendum does not have to be circulated for public review but must be
considered by the decision-making authority along with the Final
Environmental Impact Report prior to a decision being made on the project.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed revision to the Terra Nova Shoppin§ Center, which is
discussed within EIR-79-8, involves the replacement of a proposed 4,500
sq. ft. fast food restaurant with self serve gas station and 725 sq. ft.
retail mini-market.
C. PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Environmental Impact Report for this project includes an evaluation of
23 issues. Most of the miti§ation for potential impacts have been
implemented prior to construction, during construction, or are onEoin§
over the development of the project. There is, however, the issue of
transportation and access which should be discussed.
The previously approved fast food restaurant would have generated
approximately 2,475 average daily trips (ADT). The anticipated traffic
generation for the proposed service station/mini-market is approximately
1,000 ADTo As a result of the proposed project revision to the Terra Nova
Shopping Center, the number of daily vehicle trips will actually he
reduced by approximately 1,475 trips.
D. CONCLUSION
The evaluation of the proposed project revision, the approved final
and the subsequent info~matlon submitted by the applicant and reviewed by
City staff indicates there will be no significant environmental impacts
that will result from the project revisions which were not evaluated in
the final EIR for the Hidden Vista Village Project (Terra Nova
Plaza-EIR-?9-8). Therefore, it is recommended that Design Review
Conunlttee re-certify EIR-?9-8 along with this addendum prior to their
conslderat~on of the proposed project.
~rPC 2845P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June II, 1986 Page
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-86-D - Consideration to prezone approximately
45.75 acres of territory, located southeasterly of the
terminus of Mace Street and, extending in a
southeasterly direction to the north facing slopes of
the Otay Valley, to A-~ (Agriculture) and ~-l
(Floodway) zones
A. BACKGROUND
1. On March 18, 1986, the City Council adopted a resolution (#12408) to
initiate the annexation of the subject territory before the Local
Agency Formation Commission {LAFCO). While the territory is situated
within the City of San Diego, it is also within the boundaries of the
approved Chula Vista Sphere-of-Influence Plan. The proposed subject
prezoning is prerequisite to the processing of the proposed
annexation.
2. The project has a Class 19 exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and further
environmental assessment is therefore not required.
3. The total acreage in the proposed Mid-Otay annexation is 61.64
acres. One parcel consisting of 15.89 acres was prezoned A-8 as part
of the Fenton/Lake prezoning.
B. RECOMMENDATION
That City Council enact an ordinance which prezones the territory A-8
(Agriculture) and F-l (Floodway) as shown on Exhibit "A".
C. DISCUSSION
Existing Site Characteristics
The project area, which lies within the Otay Valley, consists of 2 vacant
parcels which have a total area of 45.75 acres. The area is traversed by
the Otay River, and is characterized by steep slopes along the southerly
boundary.
General Plan
The Otay-Mesa Nestor Community Plan of the City of San Diego designates
that portion of the project area, which lies north of the Otay River, as
"Low Density Residential - 5-10 DU's acre". The Otay River and the area
south are designated "Parks and Public Open Space".
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 2
The Chula Vista General Plan designates the area north of the Otay River
as "Research and Limited Industrial" and the Otay River's riparian margins
are designated "Parks and Public Open Space" as shown on Exhibit "B". As
the property is presently included in the Chula Vista General Plan, no
further general planning action is required in conjunction with this
reorganization. A resolve as to whether the property is to be industrial
or residential would occur with the initiation of a specific plan or as
part of the City's General Plan update which is now beginning. The
prezoning affords flexibility in that regard.
Existin9 Zonin9
The City of San Diego has zoned the Otay River FW {Floodway) and both
sides of the River as A-l-lO (Agriculture). The adjacent zoning and land
uses are as follows:
North M-54 Vacant, Single-Family Detached, Industrial (City of
Chula Vista/Montgomery)
South R-l-5 Single-Family Detached (City of San Diego)
East RVlS, Single-Family Detached, Duplex, Vacant
A70 (City of Chula Vista/Montgomery)
West ATO Vacant, Industrial (City of Chula Vista/Montgomery)
D. ANALYSIS
The proposed prezoning is similar to the City of San Diego's zoning
classifications which presently govern the development and conservation of
the subject territory. The A-8 zoning would function as a holding zone
until definitive plans for the area are prepared by the property owners,
and sanctioned by the City of Chula Vista.
WPC 2802P
::::::::::::::::::::::: ......
i
I
I
I
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: n'"l office of Planning & Research FROM: Environmental Review Coordinator
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Planning Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
n~ County Clerk Chula Vista, CA 92010
County of San Diego
220 Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Project Title
Mid Otay Prezoninq/Annexation
Project
L°cati°~s~P~iI[i8CDs, North of Palm Avenue
Project Location - City of Chula Vista Project Location - County of San Diego
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
The project involves the prezoning and annexation of 61.64 acres. Prezoning and
existing zoning are for agricultural uses and flooding.
Name Of Public Agency Approving Project City of Chula Vista
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project City of Chula Vista
Exempt Status: (Check one)
~Feasibility/Planning Study (Sec. 15072)
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071a)
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071b & c)
X Categorical Exemption. State Type and section number: ~
__Not a Project (Sec. 15037)
Reasons why this project is exempt:
The proposed prezoning of this property is similar to the zoning within the
City of San Diego, Therefore the project consists of only a change in
jurisdictions and not in Land Use.
con~act Person: [~}~ Area Code Telephone
Douglas D. Reio~Y' 619 691-5104
If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving
the project? Yes No
)ate Received for Filing
Signature
CASE NO. ERE-86-8
£N 2 (Rev. 12/82)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June II, 1986 Page 1
4. Report: PCM-86-25; Consideration of a request to initiate a zoning text
amendment to allow used car sales in the I-L limited industrial zone -
Damco Used Trucks
A. BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1986, a letter was received by Mr. Donald Magley of Damco
Used Trucks and Equipment located at 3554 Main Street requesting that the
Planning Commission initiate a zoning text amendment to included used car
sales in the I-L limited industrial zone.
Damco is a used truck parts and repair yard located within the I-L zone on
the north side of Main Street directly adjacent to the Montgomery
annexation area. The owner had leased a portion of the front lot to be
used for used car sales by O&C Motors. The used car firm was notified by
zoning enforcement personnel and the Planning Department that used car
sales is not an allowed use in that zone.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the request to initiate a zoning text amendment to
allow used car sales within the I-L limited industrial zone.
C. DISCUSSION
Damco truck parts and equipment is located within the Montgomery area, but
was not a part of the recent Montgomery annexation. The area on the north
side of Main Street between Albany Avenue and Mace Street was annexed to
the City in 1959 and 1968.
The owner of the property has stated that the reason for the request is
due to the fact that there are six used car lots and a car auction and
storage lot within one block of the site. The lots referred to are
located within the M-52 limited industrial zone in the Montgomery
annexation area. In the M-52 zone, the sale of automobiles is permitted.
In reviewing the owner's request, staff recommends that used car sales not
be a permitted use within the I-L zone. Although some retail sales uses
are permitted, both new and used, such as truck, trailer, mobilehome, boat
and farm implement sales, those uses are complementary to or supportive of
other industrial uses. Those uses permitted or conditionally permitted in
the I-L zone cater to industrial and manufacturing industries, or are an
outlet for large scale manufacturing industries. Used car sales, however,
cater to the general commercial consumer.
The sale of used cars is a use conditionally permitted in the C-T
thoroughfare commercial zone. Presently, there are 145 acres zoned for
C-T uses throughout the City (excluding Montgomery).
City Planning Commission Page 2
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986
The presence of other used car lots within the vicinity is due to the fact
that they are within the Montgomery annexation areas under the M-52
limited industrial zone, which permits used car sales. There are
presently 309 acres within the Montgomery annexation area zoned for M-52
limited industrial uses.
The zoning ordinance in effect for this area is on an interim basis,
pending implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. It has not been
determined at this time whether used car sales in this area will continue
to be either a permitted or conditionally permitted use.
WPC 2860P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June ll, 1986 Page 1
5. Report: PCM-86-27; Consideration of including "Recreational Vehicle
Storage" in the Unclassified Uses section of the Zoning Ordinance
A. BACKGROUND
A request has been received for the Planning Commission to consider a
zoning text amendment which would permit recreational vehicle (RV) storage
in the R-3 zone upon the issuance of a conditional use permit. Although
the request relates to a specific site (within the SDG&E right-of-way just
north of Trenton Avenue), the amendment would apply City-wide and thus
must be viewed from that perspective.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to initiate a zoning text amendment to include recreational
vehicle storage in the unclassified uses section of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. DISCUSSION
The Zoning 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.
The request as submitted would limit the scope of the amendment to the R-3
zone. For the reasons outlined below, however, we believe RV storage is a
good candidate for consideration as an unclassified use.
D. ANALYSIS
Unclassified uses are considered to possess such unique characteristics
and special form as to make unpractical 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.
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 June ll, 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-way, both of which can involve property in various zones.
Furthermore, there is apparently a substantial shortage of RV storage
facilities in the community; at least this argument has been advanced by
recreational vehicle enthusiasts when the City has considered tightening
restrictions for RV parking in residential neighborhoods.
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. An
important component of such a zoning text amendment would be a listing in
the Code of issues to be addressed with each such CUP application, such as
screening (fencing/walls/landscaping), access {major/collector), lighting,
signs, hours of operation, adjacent land uses, customer parking, office
facilities, security, height of storage items, and possibly a time limit
on the permit to allow periodic review based upon any change in
surrounding conditions.
WPC 2872P