HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/06/10 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 10, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 13, 1987
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-87-20tay Rio Business Park
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-87-4 Plaza Bonita Apartments
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-40M: Request to
continue an existing auto recycling yard located
at 150 Center Street - Standard Auto Recycling
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-39M: Request to
allow continuance of an RV storage lot located at
1383 Broadway - Broadway Equities, Ltd.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: 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
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting of June 17, 1987 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
June 10, 1987
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-87-2 Otay Rio Business Park
A. BACKGROUND
This EIR was i~sued for public and agency review on April 23, 1987. It
has been circulated through the State Clearinghouse under a 45-day review
period, which ended on June 5, 1987. Comments from the Clearinghouse, if
any, are pending.
The Resource Conservation Commission has reviewed the document and found
that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA and recommended that the
Planning Commission certify the EIR.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold the public hearing and schedule consideration of the final EIR
for June 24, 1987.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 210-acre project site is located in the extreme southeast corner of
the City, approximately 3 miles north of the border, adjacent to the
County of San Diego to the east, and the City of San Diego to the south
and west. Otay Valley Road bounds the project area on the east side.
Generally, the applicant proposes to subdivide the site into 113 lots.
Lots 2 through l0 an 12 through 80 would be designated industrial; lot ll
would be designated industrial, but would have commercial uses under the
provisions of a Master CUP; lots 82 through 130 would be designated single
family residential; lot 1 would be designated park land, though the
majority would remain in natural open space; and lot 81 would be
agricultural (open space). The site is divided into 3 units, with Unit 1
including the industrial, commercial and park land lots; Unit 2 would
include the agricultural (open space) area and residential lots in the
southwest corner, and Unit 3 would include the 5 residential lots along
the south central border.
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Zone Change,
and Tentative Subdivision Map approval.
Units 2 and 3, being separated from the rest of the project, may be
developed at a later time when adjacent residential development, and
associated street developments, occur. Units 2 and 3 are dependent upon
the development of the property to the south (Robinhood Ridge and
associated streets).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 2
The proposed plan includes two phases. The first phase includes
industrial use lots 7 through 10, 12 through 40, and 74 through 80,
totalling 53.5 acres. The second phase includes the remainder of the
site. However, Phase 2 may be broken out into more phases as
project-related constraints, such as access considerations, become
apparent. The first phase would occur before widening of Otay Valley
Road, whereas the second phase is dependent upon widening of that road for
traffic reasons, and would occur after completion of the widening.
D. PROJECT IMPACT
Geology and Soils
The proposed project would entail grading of the site in preparation for
structural development. Maximum slopes proposed are a ratio of 2.0
horizontal to 1.O vertical. The industrial use lots would require 600,000
cubic yards of cut and the same amount of fill; the residential lots would
require 300,000 cubic yards of cut and the same amount of fill.
Once structures are developed, impacts could occur from the unstable,
compressible, and expansive deposits and formations found on the site.
The problem deposits and formations are the alluvium, colluvium/slopewash,
bentonite clay layers, landslides, and dams. Because the applicant is
preparing the site for future development, he would be responsible for the
remedial grading which is necessary to stabilize the soils and landslides
before development can occur. Further detailed subsurface soil and
engineering geology investigations would determine the type and locations
of remedial grading necessary, as well as foundation and construction
recommendations.
Minerals
The proposed project would grade the site into pads in anticipation of
structural development. The land uses expected are both light
industrial/research and residential, and are deemed incompatible ~as
defined by the State Mining and Geology Board) with mining. The State
Mining and Geology Board (Department of Conservation) would normally cite
development of incompatible land use a significant unmitigable impact
(O'Bryant, 1986). Their recommendation would be to extract the resource
before development of incompatible uses. However, based on the recent
GEOCON study performed to determine the suitability of subsurface soils
for resource extraction, it was found that these soils do not possess
qualities desirable for mining, and it is found that no significant or
adverse impacts to this resource would occur from project development.
Drainage
At ultimate buildout, the proposed project would grade for development
approximately 64 percent of the site, or about 135 acres. Most of this
area will eventually be covered with surfaces (roads, rooftops, parking
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 3
lots, etc.) which are impervious to surface-to-groundwater drainage.
Considering the amount of anticipated surface coverage, the surface water
runoff Ibased on precipitation levels of a ten-year storm) would total
about 248 cfs, or an increase from current runoff levels of about 40
percent. The increases in runoff would not be accompanied by increased
sediment loads because of the change in land use from open space and
agriculture to urban uses.
Because the project site represents a very small percentage of the Otay
River watershed, the increase in peak runoff from the site would represent
only an incremental increase to the existing flood discharges from the
rest of the watershed. However, as development continues in the
watershed, the increase could be considered cumulatively significant
because of existing downstream moderate flooding problems in the
floodplain. The proposed natural open space/riparian area in Lot 1 is
located within the lO0-year floodplain. As no use is proposed for this
area, no impacts would occur.
Noise
Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with urbanizing
development. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will
create short-term noise increases near the project site. Upon completion,
vehicular traffic on streets within the surrounding community may create a
higher noise exposure to area residents beyond the noise levels currently
experienced.
Long term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the project
area center primarily on mobile sources on the major roadways surrounding
the project site. Industrial uses are proposed along Otay Valley Road
where noise levels from traffic would be highest. Whereas 65 CNEL is the
acceptable limit for residential uses, 70 CNEL is the acceptable limit
(Noise Ordinance) for industrial development. The 70 CNEL contour occurs
approximately lO0 feet from the Otay Valley Road centerline. Beyond that
distance, noise impacts would occur, and measures to reduce noise would be
necessary.
Biology
The project as proposed would eliminate .92 acres of Riparian Woodland,
characterized by Mulefat and facultative indicator species. However, the
remainder of riparian habitat on site located in the northwestern corner
of the property is to be preserved as open space. It would also eliminate
approximately 85 acres of highly disturbed Inland Sage Scrub, and
approximately llO acres of Fallow Agricultural Fields.
Development of the property would also cause incremental loss of raptor
foraging land, and an incremental loss of the sensitive plants Ferocactus,
Dichondra, and Viguiera laciniata.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 4
Archaeology
The initial archaeological survey of the Otay Rio Business Park project
area indicated that nearly half of the project site had some artifactual
coverage. As detailed collection and mapping were carried out, five loci
(artifact concentrations and intervening lighter density areas) became
apparent, scattered over approximately 75 acres. All artifacts located as
a result of the project survey were collected for analysis.
The success of the surface collection program and the relatively large
quantify of cultural material recovered during that process indicated that
comparable subsurface deposits might be present, especially in the areas
of the greatest artifact density. The subsurface evaluation was based on
the excavation of one-meter-square test units in decimeter levels. One or
more units were located at each of the site loci but the subsurfacae
excavations failed to locate any significant deposits of cultural
materials. Neither did randomly-placed test trenches cutting across the
site loci locate any significant deposits. This indicates that the site
activity may have been very mobile, without requiring major, long-term
camp sites.
Upon the completion of the surface recovery program and the documentation
of the absence of any subsurface deposits, the field operations were
terminated. Essentially, the research potential of the site was
exhausted, as no further artifact concentrations remain.
The proposed development of the Otay Rio Business Park project will
include grading and building upon nearly all of the area of W-3861. This
will represent a direct impact to the site, but as the archaeological site
no longer retains any research potential, subsurface deposits, or major
features, the impacts to the site from development are not considered
adverse or significant.
Historical Resources
Within project boundaries, two houses and various related outbuildings are
considered to be potentially historically significant. The first is
situated in the northwestern corner of the project, along the river
terrace, and consists of a small square house and tool shed along with
various additions, such as parking sheds. The second structure is located
near the eastern property boundary, at the base of the steep slopes which
lead to Otay Mesa. This second structure is a well-preserved farmhouse
and garage.
The structure situated along the river terrace in the northwest corner of
the property is a redwood bungalow. In general, redwood bungalows are an
architectural artifact from the period between 1880 and 1900.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 5
The analysis of the redwood bungalow and various related historical
concerns has led to the following findings:
1. The structure is in excess of lO0 years old, as denoted by the 1878
Township Plat;
2. The owners of the lot and house between 1871 and 1901 did not ~nclude
any historically distinguished persons;
3. There are no registered historic sites of similar description in the
general area;
4. The structure is an example of a special architectural style common
during the late 1800s in southern California;
5. The structure is in very poor condition;
6. The house meets the antiquity standard for nomination to the National
Register, but fails to meet the other criteria for acceptance to the
Register, and cannot be nominated on the basis of age alone;
7. A trash dump is present to the west of the structure which may be
considered to be a potential source of significant historical data.
Due to the findings stated above, the bungalow is considered a minimally
significant site, and the impacts from demolition of the bungalow for
project development are not considered significant.
The only recommended mitigation measure for impacts from demolition of the
redwood bungalow structure and associated structures would be to closely
monitor the grading of the trash dump in order to salvage any historic
artifacts which might be unearthed. A report would then be generated to
provide an analysis of the historic artifacts in relation to the early
homesteads and farms in Otay Valley.
Paleontology
The distribution of paleontological resources {fossils) in an area is
directly related to the distribution of the geologic layers within which
the fossils are buried. River and lake deposits exist on the site from
the Sweetwater, Otay, and San Diego formations which all exist in the
project vicinity.
Museum locality records do not document any known fossil localities within
the project site and none were found during the field walkover. It is
important, however, to point out that many fossil sites presently on
record in San Diego have been discovered only during residential
development {grading) activities or during highway and freeway
construction projects. Due to the amount of grading proposed for some
sites, odds are increased that this grading will unearth fossils.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 6
In addition to this, knowing the past fossil potential of a particular
geological "layer" in one area is a reliable method for determining the
resource potential of that "layer" in other unexplored areas.
The Otay Formation at EastLake (near Southwestern Junior College) has
recently been shown (Demere 1986) to contain significant paleontological
resources including well-preserved remains of fossil land vertebrates such
as lizards, turtles, birds, hedgehogs, rabbits, rodents, carnivores,
camels, mouse-deer, and oreodonts (extinct pig-like grazing animals).
The San Diego Formation has been known for a long time to possess a high
paleontological resource potential (Domning and Demere, 1984) and has
produced large and well-preserved assemblages of fossil marine vertebrates
including sharks, rays, bony fish, sea birds, fur seals, walrus',
dolphins, baleen whales, and sea cows. Demere (1984) reported on the
occurrence of fossiliferous exposures of the San Diego Formation at two
sites within 1.5 miles of the project site (NW 1/4 of Sec. 31, T. 18S.,
R. 1W.). One of these sites (San Diego Society of Natural History
Locality 3076) has produced remains of shark, ray, bony fish, albatross,
fur seal, dolphin, and baleen whale.
With the basic assumptions in mind concerning the paleontological resource
potential of the geological rock units (formations), it is suggested that
development of the project site could result in impacts to significant
paleontological resources (principally the potentially fossiliferous
deposits of the Otay and San Diego Formations). These impacts would occur
when mass grading operations cut into the fossil-bearing layers in these
two formations.
Land Use
Implementation of the proposed GPA and Zone Change would significantly
change the type of land use allowed on the project site from low density
residential to a mix of urban uses, largely light industrial. The mixture
of uses, however, is considered to provide a gradual transition from the
existing industrial nature of the Valley to the proposed and planned
residential uses to the south and west.
Chula Vista's General Plans and Zoning to the north allow for Open Space
along the Otay River and floodplain, and industrial use along Otay Valley
Road and to the north. The proposed GPA and Zone Change would be
compatible with these existing adjacent designations.
Biological studies for this EIR found that the northwest corner of the
site is a wetland area, part of the large wetland associated with the Otay
River floodplain. The onsite wetland is protected by the Open Space Plan
designation, however, a portion of it is covered by the IL-P proposed
zone. The GPA would provide open space protection to this area,
especially with further restrictions placed on this area during the
subdivision map process. During the map process, this area should be
placed in permanent open space, and later, shown on the Final Map as a
restriction on the property, either in the form of designated fee title or
an open space easement.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 7
The City of San Diego's surrounding General Plan and Zoning designations
allow for Very Low Density to Medium Low Density Residential development.
The proposed GPA and Zone Change would be compatible with San Diego's
designations to the south and southwest. The General Plans for the two
jurisdictions would conflict on the west, however, where the proposed
industrial GPA and Zone would conflict with San Diego's very low density
(0-5 dwelling units per acre) plans.
Another land use consideration is the expansion of the Brown Field
Airport's noise contours. Presently, the extension of the noise contours
configuration over the City of San Diego is unknown, but it may extend
toward the northwest in the direction of the project site. The City of
San Diego's Very Low, Low, and Medium Low Density Residential designations
in this area may then become incompatible with the high noise levels
anticipated within these contours.
Aesthetics
While specific lot uses are presently unknown, the change in land use
proposed by the project will substantially alter the visual quality of the
site. The Tentative Map for the proposed Business Park indicates that
approximately 135 acres would be given over to commercial, light
industrial and residential uses.
In light of proposed development in the surrounding areas, however,
project planned uses are consistent with adjacent properties, the
proposed single family lots abut the Robinhood Ridge residential
development while the open space separates these areas from the light
industrial/commercial lots below. The latter lots extend north to the
river drainage and towards an area zoned Light Industrial by the City of
Chula Vista and which contains redevelopment area industrial uses and
wrecking yards. The Otay Rio Business Park plan, therefore, provides a
gradual buffer between the approved Robinhood Ridge developments and the
existing industrial development in the area.
Construction-related impacts will also significantly alter the existing
visual nature of the site; however, these impacts would be temporary, and
would occur in phases.
Schools
The Otay Rio project includes planned development of 49 single-family
dwellings. Using multipliers providers by the Districts (0.4 SFD for
Chula Vista; 0.39 SFD for Sweetwater), it was computed that the
residential element of the proposed project could result in an impact of
an additional 20 elementary school and 20 upper school children to the
system.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 8
Anticipated impacts to the school systems will be significant. As noted
above, existing schools are nearing or exceeding state mandated capacity
limits. The projected 20 elementary school children have no available
school and the high school age children would attend a school already over
enrollment maximums set by the state. However, development of the
residential portion of the project would occur in the final phase of
development, and by that time, the existing school situation may be
different, resulting in different impacts.
The situation is additionally complicated by the fact that there are
several other proposed residential developments in the area immediately
surrounding Otay Rio. Of these, only two developers have submitted
precise plans as of January 1987. One of these {Pardee-California
Terraces) proposes 4,756 single and multi-family residences. The other
{Robinhood Homes-Robinhood Ridge) proposes 1,046 new units. An additional
development to be completed by Stafford-Gardner is not in the immediate
area but was noted by the Sweetwater District as of concern as it would
also funnel students into the Castle Park High School. Approximately
3,000 homes are projected for this development.
Therefore, although the Otay Rio project will result in a relatively
slight incremental increase of students to the system, impacts of all
these developments on the school system will obviously be dramatic. The
existing school base is inadequate in view of the projected growth and new
facilities will be needed. Standard developer fees will not provide
enough income to build a school; 1986-87 predicted costs for acquisition
of a lO-acre parcel and construction of an elementary facility totalled
$4.5 million.
Parks and Open Space
The proposed project includes approximately 1.5 acres of park land, which
would serve the Business Park employees. No dedicated park land is
proposed for the residential areas. The developer would be required to
compensate for the provision of parkland by payment of fees as required by
the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. In addition, a proposed park site is
included in the Robinhood Ridge development proposal adjacent to the
residential lots proposed in this development.
Approximately 75 acres of the project site are proposed for open space
{approximately 35 percent). The largest piece of contiguous open space is
in the southeast corner and is quite steep. The other open space areas
are generally along the steepest hillsides.
Fire Protection
The project area is serviced by Chula Vista Fire Department Station No. 3,
located at 266 E. Oneida Street. Three firefighters are assigned to
Station No. 3. Estimated response time to the project vicinity is
approximately 12 minutes, which is considered excessive by Fire Department
personnel. Average response time should be approximately four minutes;
nine minutes is the upper limit of acceptability.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 9
The proposed project street widths are sufficient to provide Chula Vista
fire engines with their required maneuverability and turning requirements
with two exceptions. These are streets I and K in the residential portion
of the proposed project. The turning radius at the end of each of these
cul-de-sacs appears to be exactly 40 feet. If a single car was parked at
the turning point, the engine would be unable to maneuver.
With the addition of more industrial, commercial and residential
development from the proposed project as well as surrounding projects, the
percentage of incidents will also increase. These issues are considered
significant by the Fire Marshal.
The Otay Municipal Water District (OMWD) could serve the site with 3,000
gpm. Fire flow requirements may be as high as 5,000 gpm, depending on the
type of occupancy and square footage of buildings. However, with
installation of sprinkler systems, these requirements could be 2,500 gpm,
well within the amount provided by OMWD.
Utility Service
The proposed project is provided with energy by San Diego Gas and
Electric. At the present time, the project area is served by electric
lines only. The closest gas line is located approximately 5,600 feet east
of where Otay Valley Road turns south.
Located at the end of existing circuits, development on the subject
property would strain the existing system. Loads resulting from the
projected residential development are considered inconsequential when
compared to those anticipated to result from the slated commercial and
industrial uses on the property. Together, however, proposed development
uses will impact the existing system. Also, other planned area
developments, in conjunction with the proposed project, would result in
cumulative impacts to the existing system.
A new substation has just been completed on the corner of Harvest Road
just south of Otay Mesa Road and to the east of Brown Field. The current
circuits feeding the project site extend from the Main Street substation
in Chula Vista. Existing circuits may have to be rearranged, extended or
shortened.
Water Service
In order to annex into Otay Municipal Water District (Otay), approvals
must be obtained from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the
MWD, and the CWA. Otay has stated that they could supply the water from
their existing system. The developer would have to extend water mains
approximately 7,500 feet from the closest point of connection, which is at
the intersection of Maxwell Road and Otay Valley Road. Otay might be able
to negotiate (at the developer's expense) with San Diego for the use of
their water mains already located onsite. Otay's system could supply
3,000 gallons per minute without extensive system changes. The costs to
annex to Otay are approximately $168,500, and the tie-in costs cannot be
detemined until detailed plans are submitted.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page l0
No impacts to water availability from development on the site would occur
once an agreement is made with the water district. Cumulative impacts to
the entire southern California water availability situation would occur
from the increased water demand at the site.
Transportation/Access
The site plan shows Otay Valley Road developed to six lane prime arterial
standards. This is appropriate for the ultimate classification expected
for this roadway. However, the roadway constitutes only two lanes at
present, and has a substandard alignment near the southerly portion of the
site. There is no timetable set as yet for completion of a program to
construct Otay Valley Road to its ultimate width.
As the proposed project is developed in a phased program, traffic will be
added to the existing traffic on the two lane section of Otay Valley Road
(between Oleander Avenue and the project site). At some point in the
phased development, the capacity of the two lane section will be
exceeded. To continue development, it will be necessary to upgrade the
roadway to four lanes.
The City of Chula Vista's design ADT for a two lane local collector is
5,000. This is a slightly low figure for the capacity of a two lane
roadway with little to no side friction and no intersection delays along
it. This roadway compares to the County of San Diego's two lane light
collector road classification. The County shows an LOS C of 7,100 ADT for
a two-lane light collector (LOS D, generally accepted as capacity, is
10,900 ADT; LOS E is 16,200 ADT).
Assuming a LOS C for this roadway to be 7,100 ADT and an existing traffic
volume of 1,400 ADT, the remaining volume to maintain a LOS C would be
5,700 ADT. The two lane segment north of the site was assumed to have 80%
of the residential trips, and 90% of the industrial and commercial trips
assigned to it (under the worst case assumption of only Otay Valley Road
for access).
Phase I development of the site could be accommodated by the existing two
lane collector. However, other developments will be occurring in the
project vicinity which will utilize Otay Valley Road. Thus, at some point
in the near future, the proposed project development, in conjunction with
surrounding development, will significantly raise the ADT on Otay Valley
Road above acceptable levels. The proposed project incrementally
contributes to this cumulative impact.
WPC 3953P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-87-4, Plaza Bonita Apartments
A. BACKGROUND
This EIR was issued for public and Agency review on May 5, 1987. It
was circulated through the State Clearinghouse; at the applicant's
request, staff requested and received a shortened review period since the
only commenting State agency, CalTrans, had consented to a 30-day review
rather than the normal 45-day review period. The Clearinghouse review
period ends on June 8. As of this date, several comments have been
received from other agencies and the public and are attached in Exhibit A
of this report.
The Resource Conservation Con~ission has reviewed the document and,
while finding that it was in compliance with CEQA, recommended that the
Planning Commission not certify the EIR and deny the project. The
reasons stated for the recommendation are as follows:
1. The density is unacceptably high.
2. Traffic conditions are not acceptable at the present;
implementation of the project would create adverse impacts of an
incremental nature.
3. Timing of the development is inappropriate due to the General
Plan Update and the Bonita Road traffic corridor study.
4. The aesthetic impact on the gateway to the community is adverse
in nature due to the monolithic appearance of the apartments in
concert with the development across the street.
5. Adverse impacts would occur due to increased traffic noise.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold the public hearing and schedule consideration of the final
EIR for June 24, 1987.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Plaza Bonita apartment complex would provide 96
apartment units on the 4.6-acre project site, with concomitant parking
and recreational facilities. Parking would be provided on-site for 161
vehicles, with 24 parking spaces tucked under three of the buildings.
Access would be gained from two driveways off of Bonita Road; no access
would be provided directly to "E" Street.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page 2
The apartment complex would consist of seven structures: three
two-story on grade, three three-story (two-story residential with parking
basements), and one combination one- and two- story recreation building.
The two-story structures would be a maximum of 28 feet tall, and the
three story structures would reach a height of 37 feet. Each of the six
apartment buildings would house 16 units for a total of 72 one-bedroom
units and 24 two-bedroom units. Proposed recreation facilities include a
swimming pool, a therapy pool, and a meeting room. Mailboxes, laundry
facilities, equipment storage, and manager's office would also be
provided in the recreation building.
Approximately 4.5 acres of the project site would be graded, with
3,500 cubic yards excavated and 22,000 cubic yards filled. Approximate
maximum depth of cut would be 10 feet; average depth of cut would be 4
feet. Approximate maximum depth of fill would be 13 feet; average depth
of fill would be 4 feet.
D. PROJECT IMPACT
Transportation/Access
The proposed project would generate 768 trips per day, with an
estimated 55% of that traffic proceeding west and 45% proceeding east
on Bonita Road. The project traffic would not result in a lowered
Level of Service at any of the project area intersections analyzed in
~i~ ~raff~c study, so that no direct significant traffic impacts
would result. (Please see table attached.) The incremental
contribution to areawide traffic is small (1.7% and 0.1% west and
east of 1-805, respectively), and no significant cumulative traffic
impacts would result from the project's implementation. However, any
increase in traffic volumes must be recognized as an incremental
impact in an area experiencing traffic congestion.
Noise
Traffic on "E" Street and on Interstate 805 presently subjects the
proposed project site to potentially significant noise levels (67
dB-A CNEL). Future traffic on "E" Street is predicted to decrease
from 23,100 trips per day to 13,100, but increases are projected for
1-805. Therefore, the noise levels at the proposed project site are
expected to remain constant.
Land Use
The proposed project is inconsistent with both the City's General
Plan land use designation and zoning regulations, and would require a
General Plan amendment and rezone. The project would create a higher
density development than presently allowed, and the potential
character of the site ~ld change from medium density single family
to high density multiple family residential. This would result in an
incompatibility with adjacent single family residential development.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 3
Landform/Aesthetics
Although most of the site would be graded, no substantial landform
modification is proposed, and the site would retain its general
slope. While five to six existing trees would be removed, the
majority of the 110 eucalyptus trees on site would remain. The
proposed structures would be more massive than the existing
residences on Bonita Road, and views from Hilltop Drive and "E"
Street would also be affected.
Community Infrastructure (Schools)
Area schools, already overcrowded, would be further impacted by
additional students generated by the proposed project. Presently,
Hilltop Junior High School could accommodate the additional students,
but elementary and high school students would require bus
transportation to alternative school facilities.
Soil s/Geology
Soils on the project site have moderate to severe expansive
potential, which could cause damage to foundations and structures.
The site's proximity to the Coronado Banks Fault and La Nacion Fault
places it at seismic risk, but this risk would not be any greater
than that in most areas of the County. While a surface inspection
showed no evidence of a high groundwater table, the site is
potentially at risk from liquefaction associated with groundshaking.
Hydrol ogy/Groundwater
Implementation of the proposed project would require an increase in
impervious surfaces {e.g., pavement) and could result in increased
runoff. The eastern portion of the project site lies in the 100 year
flood plain, subjecting that portion to inundation. Presently, the
site makes no significant contribution to the existing groundwater.
WPC 3951 P
EXHIBIT A
Public Review Comments received to date
May 23, 1987
Mr. Doug Reid
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
Mr. Reid,
This letter is in regard to the proposed construction of a 96 unit
apartment complex on the property bounded by 'E' Street and Bonita Road.
As a home owner on near-by Eucalyptus Court, I can assure you that
we are already experiencing horrendous traffic conjestion, along with
high noise and air pollution levels, which, in my opinion, is a direct re-
sult of the many high density units already existing within an area less
than a square mile of the proposed apartments, i.e.
1. Eucalyptus Grove Apts.
2. Whispering Trees Apts.
3. Apts. East of 805 on Bonita Raod
4. Ramada Inn
5. La Quinta Motel
6. Add the continuous traffic from Plaza Bonita, Denny's Restaurant,
and Love's Barbeque.
Has the suggested $100 ,000 traffic study for this intersection been
completed? Have the results been published? I would ask you and all mem-
bers of the C.V. Planning Commission, and the C.V. City Council, to drive
your cars through this intersection at peak traffic hours for several days,
and experience first hand our accute EXISTING problems. There have been
frequent times that I have been unable to exit 'E' Street SAFELY due to
backed-up traffic, so am forced to my only alternate route -- Hilltop Drive
off of Bonita Road -- directly across from the proposed 96 unit apartment
complex ! ! Soon, we residents of 'Bonita Cove' will be literally "locked
in" o~ locked out" !l
I am extremely concerned that this apartment complex would only
compound an already frustratin~ situation, and strongly oppose construction
of same! I
Respectfully,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
DIVISION OF BUSINESS S~VIC~
RECEI .ED
'
Hay 27, 1987 ~, ::"
Ms. 3ulie Schilling PLANNING D,,A.~IMEi]T
Assistant Planner CttULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA'
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Ms. Schilling:
RE: BONITA PLAZA APARTMENTS EIR-87-4
The Sweetwater Union High School District has been experiencing
increasingly overcrowded conditions for the past three years.
Students generated from this project will attend Hilltop Junior
High School and Hilltop High School. Below are capacity and
enrollment statistics for these schools:
Temporary Permanent Current
Classroom Classroom Enrollment
Capacity Capacity _ .May 1987 .
Hilltop High 120 1388 1429
Hilltop Junior 1386 1313
As you can see from this information, the permanent capacity of
these schools is already impacted. Although not considered an
acceptable permanent solution, we have responded to overcrowded
conditions by establishing temporary trailer and relocatable
classroom facilities to house the excess students. The annual
lease-purchase cost, without the installation of electricity, is
$5400 per trailer classroom and $7194 per relocatable classroom.
There are also strains on the non-expandable services at all of
our schools; i.e., libraries, cafeterias, restrooms and
playfields.
Bussing and boundary changes are other methods we have used to
mitigate the overcrowded conditions. Recent legislation has put a
cap on school fees of $1.50 per square foot for residential
development and 25 cents per square foot for commercial/industrial
developments.
Ms. Julie Schilling
May 27, 1987
Page Two
Due to the time needed to accumulate sufficient funds for new
facilities, like many other districts statewide, Sweetwater Union
High School District is behind in its facilities program. The
District uses a yield factor of .46 to calculate the number of
school age children generated per residential dwelling unit.
Using this factor, Bonita Plaza Apartments will generate an
additional 44 students. This project would represent a temporary'
significant cumulative impact on the secondary school facilities.
The District is proceeding in plans for a new high school
projected for completion in the 1990-1991 school year and a
proposed junior high school to follow. Because enrollment within
the Sweetwater Union High School District presently exceeds the
design capacity at many of the existing schools, additional
students from this project would incrementally worsen the
overcrowded conditions.
Sincerely,
Andrew B. Campbell
Administrator of Planning
ABC: sly
CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Each child i~ an individual of g~ea~ worth
84 EAST"J*' STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010-6199 · 619425-9600
May 27, 1987
Mr. Douglas R. Reid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Reid:
RE: 96 TWO AND THREE STORY APARTNENTS
PROPERTY BOUNDED BY "E" STREET AND BON]'TA ROAR
Please be advised that the Chula Vista City School District is engaged
in an effort to integrate schools and a citizens advisory committee
may make recommendations on school assignments. We can assure that
classroom facilities will be available for students who would come
from this proposed development, however, we cannot assure that these
students will attend Rosebank School, as this school is heavily
overcrowded, and this proposed development would impact the current
situation.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
John E. Linn
Assistant Superintendent for
Business Management
JEL:dt ~. ~. C, ~, i ~
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OPAL FULLER. PRESIDENT · JUDY SCHULENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT·FRANK A. TARANTINO. CLERK·DR. JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, MEMBER·SHARON GILES, MEMBER
ASST. SUPT. FOR ASST SUPT, FOR ASST TO THE SUPT FOR ASST. SUPT, FOR
SUP~'RINTENOENT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTION PERSONNEL SERVICES SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
DR. LEWIS L 8EALL JOHN £ UNO DR. TATE PARKER OR. EVELYN 0. PARE OR. JOHN F. VUGRIN
5-3E~ -87'
C F,' 0 S'._~ F,' OA D $
P.0. Box 4?0
Chu]a k,"i~,t.s Ca. ?20]2
Chula Mista Planning Commi~._~ion
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 'F'2¢t8
Re: Plaza Bonita Ri, ts.. Case ~ EIF'.-87-4
Deg. r Chairman and f~ember, s of Commission:
CROSSROADS, an organization concerned t,,,i th the qual it>.'
of life in Chula Vista supports the continuance of the
pr.e=-.ent zoning on ~;his propert:,., it is a pr-ime g.~teway'
corner, on a desi gnated scen i c road and shou 1 d be u,=ed
accord i ngl y.
in reviewing the EIR on this project, we believe it is.
inadequate, contains omissions and misrepresentations and
minimizes the impacts on the roads, schools and surrounding
neighborhood.
The fact that the developer, was able to develop at the
high end of the density range and a density bonus was giq¢en
th;s same developer on Eucalyptus Grove does not mean that
this property should receive the ~ame largesse. In truth,
the density granted the Eucal>'otus OFove de,Jelopment should
be balanced by the present zoning on this parcel.
The twenty-fi...¢e letters of os.ject on from neighbors and
a letter of concern from the California Depar. tmfnt of
Tran-=.portation regarding .significar~t peak-hour tcsfEic
:m~,acts tc, the interstate Route 885 ~nterchange at E:c, nita
Road have ¢.~.s.i~.ted us in our conclusion that this. request
Fezon i n9 be den i ed.
You,
Fr no 3Utl 1
Project co-ordinator
Z R',3SSROA[ 3
ISTA,
June 4, 1987
FRoM:TO: Doug Reid, E.I.R. Coordinator ~Peter Watry ~~
SUBJECT: E.I.R. for Plaza Bonita Apartments, Case No. EIR-87-4
On page 4 it is mentioned that traffic on E Street in the vicinity of the project
is expected to decrease from its present 23,100 daily count to i3,100 in the
future after the opening of State 54 on the new Ctood control channel. I very
much question such an assumption~
The following is an attempt to analyze the effect of opening State 54 on
E Street traffic in the vicinity of the project.
1. I will concentrate on east-bound traffic first.
2. Going east on State 54 will take you either (a) straight past 1-805 to
Paradise Hills, Spring Valley, etc., or (b) to northbound 1-805 or (c)
to southbound 1-805. It will not take you into the heart of Bonita or the
Bonita Plaza shopping center except by very circuitous routes.
3. People now using E Street to go to Bonita, the Bonita Plaza shopping center,
or south on 1-805 would have no reason to drive north to the State 54 route
first. People going to Spring Valley, etc., now take Second Avenue to
State 54.
4. The only people now 3sing E Street that would gain by going north to State 54
first are people So are destined for north on 1-805, and who begin, say,
west of First Avenue.
5. On page 23 in the bottom-left quarter of the page, it shows the peak-hour
traffic count at the 1-805 East Ramp. And it shows 453 cars turning north
on 1-805. If that's the peak hour, what would the daily count be? I don't
know, but let's say I0 times that, or 4,500. What proportion of those started
west of First Avenue, and so would not take State 54? To say more than a
couple o£ thousand sounds ludicrous.
6. Any decrease in traffic as in #5 above will surely be more than offset by
new traffic generators, such as the new Eucalyptus Grove apartments and the
new La Quinta Motel operating at full speed, plus other developments to come
along Bonita Glen.
7. I would think the same analysis would apply to west-bound traffic on E Street
as well.
PLANNING DEPARTUE T,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFOP, I fA
George T. Felix 7830 la mesa boulevard phone 462-3000
la mesa, california 92041
Uay 22, 2987. RE E.I .E
Ms. Julie Schilling
City of Chula Vista M~¥ 13 ~c~c~
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
Chula Vista, CA 92020 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Dear Julie:
We have received the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Plaza Bonita Apartments (City of Chula Vista Case No. EIR-87-4
and offer the following comments:
1. page 7 Section 2.2 ~roject Characteristics, paragraph 2,
.... , three three story (two story residential with parking
basement), ...
Suggest adding (two story residential with parking basement
under one side only), .......
2.. page 27 Future Flus Project Traffic, paragraph 2,
This section is not real clear - especially as to the
reference to Table 2; the EIR portion or the Appendix
portion of traffic study?
It would also seem that a summary of Table 3 or including
Table 3 of-the Federhart Traffic Study, page 25 would help
see the overall situation.
3. page 38 Section 3.3.1 .Project Setting, paragraph 3.
Regarding current zoning being in conformance with the
General Plan on this property - they are Rot in conformance.
Existing zoning is R-1 (Low 1-3 D.U./AC) and the General
Plan shows (Medium 4-12 D.U./AC), for the subject site.
4. page 40 paragraph 5,
The projected build-out date for Eucalyptus Grove Apartments
is 1987.
5. page 41 paragraph 2,
The potential character of the site would change from medium
density single family detached to high density multifamily
is not real clear, the medium density classification (4-12
D.U./AC) does not necessarily mean single family detached.
It might be more appropriate to change this to:
would change from medium density residential ity
multifamily ........
6. page 51 paragraph 2,
Please see previous letter sent to you on May 5, 1987
regarding proposed building height in relation to existing
single family residences along south side of Bonita Road.
7. page 51 paragraph 3,
As reviewed from "E" Street Building III appears to be
between 23 and 29 feet above "E" Street, directly across
from Building III.
8. page 54 paragraph 1,
The minimum setback adjacent to "E" Street is proposed to be
minimum 25 foot.
9. page 54 paragraph 3,
Regarding height, bulk and mass of project.
The apartments are two story, and two story with parking
basement under one side.
The parking under one side is incorporated to:
a. Help the buildings step down the site and follow
the general slope of the site which slopes from west
to east.
b. To create more landscaped open space by placing some
.of the paved surface used for parking under portions
of some buildings. (Buildings III, IV and VI).
10. page 66 paragraph 1,
Reference made to 100 year elevation @ 42.5,' this should be
45.2.
Sincerely,
George T. Felix
George T. Felix 7830 la mesa boulevard phone 462-3000
la mesa, california 92041 .R E,C~i~~
May 5, 1987. [~Y 08 ~:.~
PLAN /
Ms. Julia Schilling VIST , CALI£O
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Environmental Division
276 Fourth Avenue
Chn!a Vista, CA 92010
Dear J~lie:
Regarding the siting of buildings and their relative height to
the single fsmily residences along the south side o£ Bonita
Road. It has been proposed to scale down the buildings along
Bonita Road to be compatible with the single family residences.
Three buildings are placed adjacent to Bonita Road and they
generally follow the slope of Bonita Road (elevation 66.0 to
43.0 going West to East to "E" Street). The frontage along
Bonita Road North side, is approximately 615 lineal feet.
Proposed buildings on Bonita Road total approximately 273 lineal
feet, the remaining frontage is left open as visual corridors
through the site.
Additionally:
BUILDING VI With proposed First Floor at elevation 67.0 ~s
placed directly opposite residence with First
Floor at elevation 65.5 (net difference is one
story plus 1.5 ft. above residence across
street).
BUILDING VII R~creatien - Office Building w~th proposed
First Floor elevation 56.0 · is directly acro~s
Bonita Road from residences with First Floors at
elevation 61.0 & 59.5. A portion of Building
VII has a mezzanine level which is at elevation
64.8. This portion of building is approximately
one third of the building frontage - 28 ft.
(The relative height for two thirds of the
~ilding is 3.5 - 5.0 ft. below residences First
~Aoor and one third of the building frontage is
4.0 above the First Floor of residences. Half
story below and half story above residences
directly across street).
BUILDING I At the Easterly portion of site adjacent to the
intersection of "E" Street and Bonita Road, is
placed along Bonita Road Frontage. Proposed
First Floor is at elevation 49.0. Residences
directly across from Building I are at approxim-
ately elevations 56.0; 53.0; 51.5; 49.0: (The
relative height is one story plus 2 ft. at one
end and two story at East end for a net of 2 ft.
to one story higher than residences across
street).
BUILDING II ) Have been set back off Bonita Road varying from
BUILDING III) 200 ft. - 400 ft. from residences along Bonita
BUILDING IV ) Road.
& BUILDING V ) .~
BUILDING V Has been set into hillside and has hillside and
eucalyptus grove as backdrop. This is the high-
est building proposed with First Floor at
elevation 75.5. Where this is the highest
building it has been placed so as to have
minimal impact on the relationship with Bonita
Road residences.
BUILDING IV Is the most westerly building along "E" Street
and is also the one which is furthest from
residences along Bonita Road. It is proposed to
be at elevation 65.0 for First Floor, which is
approximately 15 ft. below "E" Street at its
location. It is set down and is just below
Eucalyptus Grove on northwesterly portion of
site.
BUILDING II Which is placed along "E" Street the proposed
First Floor is at elevation 50.5 which is
directly ~cross residences along Bonita Road,
with First Floors at elevation 57.5 and 56.0 the
Second Floor of Building II is set at approxima-
tely 59.5 (the net height of Building I1 is
approximately 3.5 ft. above residences directly
across Bonita Road.
BUILDING III Along "E" Street with proposed'First Floor at
elevation 61.0 and Second Floor at elevation
70.0 is placed directly behind Building VII and
approximately 285 feet from residences on Bonita
Road. Residences on Bonita Road directly across
Bonita Road have First Floors at elevation 61.0,
59.5 and 57.5 (the relative height is from one
story to one story plus 3.5 ft. higher than
residences directly across Bonita Road).
2
Additional consideration to the interface along Bonita Road
includes:-
1. Widening of Bonita Road with new curbs, gutter and side-
walk.
2. Screen - decorative wall - fence between proposed build-
ings and residences.
3. Landscape buffer between wall and residences and wall and
proposed buildings to help visually separate and soften
the interface of the proposed development and the existing
residences along south side of Bonita Road.
The way that the description is written on page 39 seems to be '~
misleading. With the exception of Building V which is not
directly across the street from any residences along Bonita Road
the range of differential height relative to residences directly
across Bonita Road from proposed buildings range from half a
story below, to one and half stories above residences along
Bonita Road when all buildings are considered, and range from
half a story below to one story above residences when only
buildings situated on Bonita Road are considered.
RE: Draft - Environmental Impact Report
Screen check Phase EoI.R. 87-4 - Additional Comments:
Page 19, 51, 54 100 year flood elevation should be revised to 45.2 (verify with Roger
Daoust City of Chula Vista Engineering)
as required for Eucalyptus Grove Apart-
ments.
Page 28 Roughly 200 dwelling units. Buildout is
1987 when completed...
Page 36 Phase II presently is being completed and
1st paragraph is partially occupied.
Page 39 Regarding the description of the proposed
2nd paragraph buildings being one to two stories taller
than the existing residences on Bonita
Road. - See attached letter.
Page 42 Minimum 25 ft. setback adjacent to "E"
Street.
Thank you
George T. Felix
3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Q RETIONARY ACTION ON OF THE CITY
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. THE PART COUNCIL, PLANNING
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
John W. Gardner, Jr.
Karen Kaye Gardner
Mary Leu Gardner
Will Donald Gardner
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
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.
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, Co,~,issions, Com~ittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes_. No_x If yes, please indicate person(s)
_r~----'
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, c~t . m · · ·
political subd~v~sTon, or any oth_~er ~~'onm~aal~taY,un~r'ct or other
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~ ~ ~
~ ~ \ 7' 6/]6/86
WPC 0701~ ~of ~P~licant/date
A-llo Will Donald Gardner
~ naif applicant-- -- --
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Major Use Permit PCC-87-40M; request to continue an
existin9 auto dismantlin9 yard at 150 Center Street
dacK Stanley
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant currently operates an existing auto dismantling yard located
at 150 Center Street which was approved under major use permit P76-55 by
the County. The major use permit expired on April 27, 1987, and the
applicant has filed a request for a major use permit to continue the use.
The property lies wi thin an M-58 heavy industrial zone.
An Initial Study, IS-87-57M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on May
22, 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 June 3, 1987, voted
to recommend approval of the major use permit request, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff with the addition of a condition to
require fire inspection of the interior of the building and review of the
request by the Police Department. Those revisions have been incorporated
into the recommended conditions outlined in section B of this report.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-57M.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to approve the request, PCC-87-40M, to continue an existing
auto dismantling yard at 150 Center Street subject to the following
conditions:
a. The owner shall show evidence of legal access to the subject
property from Center Street along an apparent private easement
which terminates at the northeast property boundary. Based upon
the type of legal access afforded to the owner, additional
improvements to the easement may be required, subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer and Director of Planning.
b. The applicant shall complete the process initiated with the
Sweetwater Authority to install a fire hydrant along the Center
Street road easement, the type and exact location of the hydrant
subject to the approval of the City Fire Marshal.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 2
c. Adequate turnaround shall be provided for use by fire apparatus
to take form in either a cul-de-sac with a 40 foot radius or a
hammerhead turnaround with dimensions of 24 feet by 75 feet.
d. The applicant shall install and maintain the landscape and
irrigation plan as approved by the City Landscape Architect.
e. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan to reflect the
boat manufacturing operation currently present as a tenant
within the auto parts warehouse on site in conjunction with the
auto dismantling operation. The site plan shall indicate the
amount of on site parking allocated to each use and what
buffering or separation is present so that land use conflicts
between the dismantling operation and the boat manufacturing
business do not occur. Additional parking shall be provided on
site at 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor
area for the boat manufacturing operation, in addition to the 21
spaces provided for the auto dismantling business, as approved
under major use permit P76-55.
f. The major use permit is granted for a period of time not to
exceed two years or 90 days after adoption of the Montgomery
Specific Plan, whichever comes first. NOTE: Site is to be
cleared within 30 days after the expiration date or the City
shall have the right to enter onto the property and have the
site cleared with payment authorized by placement of a lien on
the property.
g. All parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained and
kept clear of wrecked autos or other storage materials. Storage
of wrecked vehicles and other materials shall only occur within
those areas indicated for such use.
h. A solid fence or wall 8 feet in height shall be maintained in
good condition surrounding the premises. Said fence or wall
shall be maintained in a neat manner and not used for
advertising purposes.
i. No outdoor storage of any type shall be stacked outside higher
than said fence and nothing shall be placed closer than two feet
to any fence or building.
j. There shall be no burning of any materials on the premises.
k. All material shall be placed and maintained so that it will not
encourage spontaneous or accidental combustion.
1. No automobile crushing or shredding shall be conducted on site.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 3
m. Fire inspection by the City Fire Marshal is required of the
interior of the building for that portion of the building
engaged in boat manufacturing. Corrections of Fire Code
violations or compliance with current Fire Codes as required by
the Fire Marshal shall be completed no later than 60 days after
final approval of the major use permit.
n. The site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Police Department to assess public safety and police protection
concerns.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North M-58 towing impound yard
South A-70 vacant, Otay River
East M-58 auto dismantling yard
West M-54 vacant, auto dismantling yard
Existing site characteristics
The project site is a 3.37 acre property with less than 2% slope on site
located at the terminus of Center Street, south of Main Street adjacent to
the north side of the Otay River. The lot contains an existing auto
dismantling operation with an open storage yard, a 26,400 square foot
building which is used partially for parts storage and a 21 space parking
lot. The property is surrounded by an 8 foot solid fence. A boat
manufacturing operation occupies the remaining portion of the steel
building.
Proposed use
The applicant proposes to continue the existing auto dismantling use with
the addition of the boat manufacturer as a tenant using a portion of the
existing storage building. The applicant has also submitted a landscape
and irrigation plan for review by the City Landscape Architect for
planting trees and shrubbery around the periphery of the lot to further
screen views of junked autos from the river and the bluffs south of the
site.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Pa9e 4
Similar establishments
There are four auto dismantling businesses and one scrap operation
existing within the vicinity of this site, all operatin9 under major use
)ermits. The status of those major use permits are listed as follows:
Major Use Type of Expiration
Business Name Location Permit Use Date
J and C Auto Wreckers 3513 & 3517 P79-013 Auto 1989
Main Street Dismantling
Phil Reeds 3525 Main Street P85-091 Auto 1990
Auto Recycling Dismantling
Phil Reeds West side of PCC 86-24M Auto June 1988
Auto Recycling 128 Mace Street Dismantling or 60 days
after
specific
plan
Action Auto Dismantlers 151 Center St. P80-055 Auto 1991
Dismantling
Chula Vista Recycling East side of PCC 86-24M Scrap Yard June 30,
128 Mace Street 1987
D. ANALYSIS
Standard Auto Recycling has been in operation as an auto dismantling
business since 1969. The last major use permit for the yard, P76-55 was
granted by the County of San Diego in April of 1977 for a period of lO
years, subject to several conditions. It appears that the owner has
complied with those conditions, and no complaints have been received
regarding the manner in which the business has been conducted.
As a result of analysis of the site, staff has concluded that a
recommendation of approval of the applicants request can be supported,
subject to the conditions outlined in Section B of this report.
The conditions of approval for this major use permit serve to address
three outstanding issues identified with continued operation of an auto
dismantling yard at this site. Those issues are, land use compatibility
between uses on site and with the Chula Vista General Plan, potential
impacts to community aesthetics, and access to the site.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 5
Land Use
Internal Design Compatibility
The project site currently houses two uses, a boat manufacturer who
occupies space within the auto parts storage building, and the auto
dismantling yard. The boat manufacturer is not shown on the site
plan; the location of the boat manufacturer and its orientation to
the dismantling yard should be shown to insure that conflicts in
operation of the two uses are not occurring. The boat manufacturing
use is permitted without a major use permit in the M-58 zone.
Provision should also be made to expand the existing parking lot to
provide parking at 1 space for every 300 square feet of gross floor
area occupied by the use. The existing 21 space parking lot was
granted under the previous major use permit and was predicated on the
use of the lot for auto dismantling uses only.
External Compatibility with General Plan
The current General Plan Land Use Diagram places a limited
industrial/research designation over the entire area south of Main
Street within the Montgomery area north of the Otay River. The auto
dismantling yard is not a limited industrial use, but is more
appropriately classified as a general industrial activity. The
Montgomery Specific Plan currently being drafted will indicate the
long term land use designation to be recommended for this area, and
is tentatively scheduled for completion in December. There is,
however, no indication at this time of the type of long term land use
designation to be recommended for this area.
The major use permit requests a continuation of an existing use which
has been conducted for a long period of time. Continuation of this
use for a short interim period pending completion of the Specific
Plan, and/or establishment of limited industrial activities more in
keeping with the current general plan, would represent compliance
with the gradual conversion of the subject area to limited research
industrial activities.
With this in mind, staff is recommending approval of the major use
permit for two years or 90 days after adoption of the Montgomery
Specific Plan, whichever comes first. This is included in condition
f shown in Section B of this report.
Aesthetics
Although no complaints regarding unsightly storage have been received with
respect to this site, and it appears to be in compliance with the
conditions of approval of the previous permit, the dismantling operation
was not designed in keeping with City policies regarding design and
landscape requirements for auto wrecking yards within the Municipal Zoning
Ordinance jurisdiction.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June lO, 1987 Page 6
The lot does, however, contain an adequate amount of on site parking for a
dismantling operation and a minimal amount of landscaping. The applicant
has also submitted a landscape and irrigation plan for planting of trees
and shrubs along the outside periphery of the lot, facing the Otay River
corridor, which has been approved with minor corrections by the City
Landscape Architect. Staff is of the opinion that given the short period
of time recommended for continuance of the use, installation of the
landscape plan and provision of parking for the boat manufacturer will
serve to keep continuation of the use from creating an aesthetic impact
upon the surrounding community. If when the Montgomery Specific Plan is
adopted, it has been determined that auto wrecking is an appropriate use
in that area, then the renewal of the major use permit would involve
further implementation of design, landscape and aesthetic enhancement
policies associated with long term use by wrecking yards. Similar long
term design standards were adopted for Otay Industrial Park and are
included in Exhibit A as an example.
Access
Sole access to the project site and to an adjacent wrecking yard located
at 151 Center Street is from Center Street which exists as a public street
from Main Street to Britton Avenue, then appears to be a private easement
from Britton Avenue to a temporary cul-de-sac at the front entrance of the
subject property. Center Street was once a public street which extended
south along the eastern side of the property to the center of the Otay
River, but was vacated south of Britton Avenue in 1943.
The applicant was required to provide street improvements to Center Street
from Britton Avenue and the project site, and provide a temporary
cul-de-sac at the present termination of the street as a condition of
approval for the major use peKmit granted in 1976. The staff report for
that permit referenced possession of irrevocable offers to dedicate for
Center Street between Britton Avenue and the subject property, which were
obtained by the owners of the properties to the north. However, review of
available records relinquished by the County showed no evidence of those
irrevocable offers, or any record of legal access to the property through
a private easement.
Because of the lack of records substantiating legal access to the site,
the Engineering Department is requiring the applicant to produce records
to show access, and based upon the form of access, require street
improvements appropriate for the use and duration of approval, subject to
approval by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. This requirement
is shown in condition a of Section B of this report.
In summary, staff is of the opinion that with fulfillment of these
conditions the use should be allowed to continue on an interim basis until
long term land use issues associated for this area can be resolved and a
program of implementation initiated.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 7
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 proposal to continue an existing use provides for the storage and
recycling of inoperable vehicles for reuse by the community. The use
is compatible with several allied automotive related industries
located throughout the area.
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 wcinity.
Approval of continuation of the existing use, as conditioned will not
result in impacts from aesthetic degradation which would adversely
affect humans or surrounding properties.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The continuation of the existing use complies with zoning ordinance
requirements governing the Montgomery area, for the M-58 heavy
industrial zone, with approval of a major use permit.
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.
In granting continuation of an existing use for an interim period
pending completion of the MOntgomery Specific Plan, approval of the
major use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista.
WPC 3919P/2652P
PROJECT/AREA ,~,~-.
! t
!
t
,?/? ,
I! !
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Standard Auto Recycling
PROJECT LOCATION: 150 Center Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: Jack Stanley
CASE NO: IS 87-57M DATE: May 22, 1987
A. Project Settin9
The project site is a 3.37 acre property with less than 2% slope ~located
at the terminus of Center Street, south of Main Street adjacent to the
north si de of the Otay River. The lot contains an existing auto
dismantlihg operation with an open storage yard, a 26,400 square foot
building which is used partially for parts storage and a 21 space parking
lot. The property is surrounded by an 8 foot solid fence. A boat
manufacturing operation occupies the remaining portion of the steel
building.
B. Project Description
The applicant proposes to continue the existing auto dismantling use with
the addition of the boat manufacturer as a tenant using a portion of the
existing storage building. The applicant has also submitted a landscape
and irrigation plan for review by the City Landscape Architect for
planting trees and shrubbery around the periphery of the lot to further
screen views of junked autos from the river and the bluffs south of the
si re.
C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans
The project is in compliance]with the M-58 general industrial zone in
effect over this area.
The current General P1 an Land Use Diagram pl aces a 1 imi ted
industrial/research designation over the entire area south of Main Street
within the Montgomery area north of the Otay River. The auto dismantling
yard is not a limited industrial use, but is more appropriately classified
as a general industrial activity. The Montgomery Specific Plan currently
being drafted will indicate the long term land use designation to be
recommended for this area, and is tentatively scheduled for completion in
December. There is, however, no indication at this time of the type of
long term land use designation to be recommended for this area.
The continuation of the use for a short interim period not to exceed two
years, pending completion of the Specific Plan would represent compliance
with the gradual conversion of the subject area to an established plan for
land use controls.
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section. CHIJI. A VISTA
-2-
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Aesthetics
The existing auto dismantling operation was not designed in keeping
with City policies regarding design and landscape requirements for
auto wrecking yards, and thus has the potential for creating adverse
aesthetic impacts widely at variance with prevailing community
standards.
2. Access
Sole access to the project site and to an adjacent wrecking yard
located at 151 Center Street is from Center Street which exists as a
public street from Main Street to Britton Avenue, then appears to be
a private easement from Britton Avenue to a temporary cul-de-sac at
the front entrance of the subject property. Center Street was once a
public street which extended south along the eastern side of the
property to the center of the 0tay River, but was vacated south of
Britton Avenue in 1943.
The applicant was required to provide street improvements to Center
Street from Britton Avenue and the project site, and provide a
temporary cul-de-sac at the present termination of the street as a
condition of approval for the major use permit granted in 1976. The
staff report for that permit referenced possession of irrevocable
offers to dedicate for Center Street between Britton Avenue and the
subject property which were obtained by the owners of the properties
to the north. However, review of available records relinquished by
the County showed no evidence of those irrevocable offers, or any
record of legal access to the property through a private easement.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
1. Aesthetics
The auto dismantling lot, although not designed to City standards,
does contain a landscape strip along the front of the property, a
view obscuring fence surrounding the property, and has submitted a
landscape plan to plant a buffer of trees and shrubs along the
periphery of the lot to shield views of wrecked autos from the
south. With the additional landscaping proposed, views of the lot
will be buffered to the point where no significant adverse
environmental impacts will occur.
2. Access
Although there is no record of easement to give access to the
property from Britton Avenue, documentation of prescriptive access is
clearly available since the property owner of Standard Auto Recycling
has used the present access for 20 years and has contributed street
improvements to the easement. As such, the issue of legal access
does not constitute a significant adverse environmental impact.
-3-
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. Continuation of the existing auto dismantling yard, with
incorporation of additional landscaping, will not degrade the
environment or curtail the diversity of the environment.
2. In approving continuance of the use for a short interim period
pending completion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, the project
achieves both short and long term environmental goals.
3. The auto dismantling operation contains no significant adverse
environmental effects which are cumulative in nature.
4. The continuation of the auto dismantling use has no involvement with
shredding of autos or storage of hazardous materials; and therefore,
will not cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Frank Herrera, Assistant Planner
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Deparbnent
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
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.
~REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 3926P/O175P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department CI~OF
environmental review section CHULAVI~A.
GUIDELINES FOR THE OTAY INDUSTRIAL PARK
1. Fencing shall consist of the following:
a. All fences visible from the street shall be of a view-obscuring wood
design or block wall construction. Block wall colors shall
complement or match building colors, and wood will be limited to
natural or stained in opaque or semi-opaque.
b. Perimeter fencing - minimum 8 feet high wood on west property line of
subdivision;
minimum 6 feet high wood adjacent ot Otay Valley
Road;
minimum 6 feet high chainlink elsewhere.
c. Interior fencing - Front: 6 feet high wood or block.
Side: 6 feet high chainlink, dark colored metal
or wood. Slats for screening may be
required depending on adjacent land use.
d. Gates - Slatted chainlink or solid wood (minimum 6 feet high).
2. Parking
All parking areas visible from the right-of-way shall be screen planted in
accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
3. Landscaping
All periphery areas adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be
landscaped and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan
for the Otay Industrial Park and the Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
Irrigation plans shall be required concurrent with the submission of
building or development plans. Interior slope banks which have been
stabilized with native ground cover may require additional tree planting
and irrigation. "Skinned" or barren slopes will require planting in
accordance with the approved plan for Otay Industrial Park.
4. Architecture
a. Block buildings shall be constructed of slumpstone, split face, and
squeeze joint styles of block in whites, plain, tan, browns, ochres,
and gray green colors.
b. Pinks, pastel greens or other loud, garish colors are not
acceptable. In no case shall block buildings be painted in gloss
colors.
c. Pressed steel buildings shall adhere to the aforementioned conditions
and are encouraged to be two-tone or tri-colored. In no case shall
gloss paints be used.
d. Fences, walls, and structures shall be color coordinated on each site.
e. Corrugated metal buildings are specifically prohibited.
f. Commercial coach trailers may be authorized as permanent office space
by the Zoning Administrator subject to:
(1) Compliance with uniform building code as a Group "F" occupancy.
(2) No more than one double-wide coach shall be located on each lot.
(3) Each coach must have two exits, providing an approved landing
and POrCh area (minimum 5 feet any direction).
(4) Units shall be fully skirted to the ground.
5. LoadinQ Docks
Whenever possible, loading docks shall be located at the rear or side of
buildings.
6. Signs
a. No billboard or outdoor advertising will be permitted. All sign
frames shall be of standard design and shall be designed as an
integral element in the architectural design of the facility.
b. Design standards - (See Exhibit A)
c. Wall signs - Maximum area of 10% of the wall area on which the sign
is mounted.
d. In addition to wall signs, each lot may install either a pole or
ground sign based on the following:
(1) Pole signs - Maximum height 12 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq.
ft.
(2) Ground signs - Maximum height 5 feet; maximum sign area, 50 sq.
ft. (Sign may be attached to fence.)
7. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve industrial developments
in the Otay Industrial Park where such industrial developments involve no
building containing more than 5,000 sq. ft.
WPC 0577P
·.,,", E,<nI.IT A
OTAY I,,~US,;.,[ML PARK TE~IA~iT SIG?iIHG
Suggested materials: 6" X 6" re-sawn redwood integral frame and posts
5/? re-sa~,~n redwood ply woodlifed
Suggested letter style/color: Helvetica - Black
Placement/location: In front of or behind fence, near entrance, within 50 feet.
Copy: All copy to be kept within specified margins.
Copy limited to:
Name, address
Hours
Phone number
Logo
Proprietor's name
Logo type and logo style permitted.
All signs are single faced.
All supporting copy shall be he!,/etica, medium black.
Sizes of modular sign face are flexible to the needs of the tenant.
Possible examples:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
APPL.ICANT'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.
Jack L. Stanley
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Jack L. Stauley
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.
./A
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. Ilave 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) to the bes% o£ o: ~owleclge
IPerson 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.f} /7 ~ ~
~'S/~gnature 6f applicant/date --
WPC 0701P v Jack L. Stanley
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page I
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-39M: Request to allow continuance
of an RV storage lot located at 1383 Broadway - Broadway Equities, Inc.
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~
SUBJECT: PCC-87-39M - Broadway RV Storage
The applicant, Broadway Equities Ltd., has requested a continance
of their major use permit request to the meeting of July 22, 1987
in order to work further with the Fire Department to resolve out-
standing issues with provision of hydrants onsite. Staff has
no objection to the applicant's request, as long as the continuance
is to a date certain, as the RV storage operation is currently
operating in violation of the zoning ordinance.
GK:JS:je
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Zonin9 Variance ZAV-87-28M; request to reduce required
number of parking spaces from 375 to 152 spaces fo,
warehouse and office at 1650 Industrial Avenue - RTA
International
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, RTA International has constructed a 21,685 square foot
office and an 80,064 square foot warehouse. Under the Montgomery Zoning
Ordinance parking standards, 375 parking spaces are required for buildings
with this amount of square footage. The variance request proposes a 60%
reduction in required parking from 375 spaces to 152 spaces.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of June 3, 1987, voted
to recommend denial of the request to reduce the required parking from 375
to 152 parking spaces.
B. RECOF~qENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a
motion to deny the request to reduce the required parking from 375 to 152
spaces.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North M-52 Limited industrial Warehouse and industrial
South M1B (City of San Diego) Main Street, industrial park
East M-52 Limited industrial State employment & training agency,
industrial manufacturing
West - Not applicable Interstate 5
Existing site characteristics
The project site consists of two lots totalling 9.88 acres located at the
northeast quadrant of the northbound on-ramp to Interstate 5 and Main
Street. Access to the site is from Industrial Blvd. to the east. The
applicant has recently constructed a 101,749 square foot building
containing a 21,685 square feet of office space and 80,064 square feet of
warehouse.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 10, 1987 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
When RTA International obtained approval from the Design Review Committee
for their office and warehouse building, they were required to provide 375
parking spaces to fulfill the County parking standard of 1 parking space
for every 300 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse and industrial
uses and 1 parking space for every 200 square feet for office uses. The
parking lot design incorporated into the site plan reflects this
requirement.
The applicant is requesting the reduction in required parking, stating the
following reasons:
1. The building is designed primarily as a warehouse facility with
supporting office staff. There is no need for parking facilities
totalling 375 spaces based upon 65 employees for the facility.
2. Maintaining and policing a parking lot of this size would create
excessive costs.
3. The nearby Southrail Business Park was granted a similar parking
variance four years ago and RTA should be afforded the same.
Staff has examined the applicant's request and the general policy
regarding granting of parking variances in Montgomery and is recommending
denial of the variance request. Staff is of the opinion that findings for
granting the variance cannot be made as there are no hardships peculiar to
the property which would justify a reduction in parking.
It is physically possible to incorporate a 375 space parking lot on the
site as shown on the plan submitted to staff. In addition, a hardship
cannot be demonstrated that the warehouse use is an unusual circumstance
creating practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs
of the owner, consistent with the regulations of the zone. The parking
ordinance clearly identifies industrial and wholesale storage uses with
respect to the above mentioned standard. The argument that the parking
standard is generally too restrictive is not the subject of a a variance,
but of a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. Problems associated
with the costs of maintaining a large lot also cannot be considered
grounds for granting a variance as personal or financial difficulties are
not hardships peculiar to the property.
Finally, reference has been made to a variance granted to Southrail
Business Park for a reduction in parking, and that this use is primarily a
warehouse distribution center performing similar functions as RTA.
Southrail Business Park was exempted from industrial parking standards by
an ordinance adopted in 1981 by the Board of Supervisors, eliminating all
parking requirements for industrial zones within 1,O00 feet of the trolley
line within the South Bay Community Planning Area. That ordinance was
revoked in 1983 and the previous parking requirements were reinstated.
The parking exemption received by Southrail has no relationship with the
particular land use employed on the property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June lO, 1987 Page 3
In summary, staff is of the opinion that until the specific plan is
adopted for Montgomery, and a definitive parking standard is adopted as
well, new industrial uses should be required to adhere to the parking
standards now in effect for Montgomery. There are significant differences
between the Montgomery ordinance and the ordinance in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code; new developments should not be afforded the opportunity to
choose between the two development standards according to which standard
is the most lenient to their respective development.
E. FINDINGS
1. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner does not exist. Ample space on the project site exists to
provide the required amount of parking. Financial difficulties
encountered in maintaining the larger lot do not constitute a
hardship justifying a variance.
2. New development of similar uses within the zone must also adhere to
the applicable parking standards for warehouse facilities, so that
granting of this variance would constitute a special privilege not
enjoyed by others. Past exemptions from the parking standards under
County ordinances no longer in effect have no bearing on the present
case.
3. Authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property.
4. The authorizing of such variance to reduce applicable parking has no
effect on the general plan for the City of Chula Vista.
WPC 3902P/2652P
IF-W)
ZAV-87-28M
,oo.[ ) ,~,,~o ,.~,u~T,,,,' "'"o.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
IWHICH 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.
RTA International. Inc.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
RTA International~ Inc.
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.
Robert H. Taniguchi
Katsum J. Takashima
Mitsuru Tanaka
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 bene[iciar¥ or trustor of the trust.
N/A
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 is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint ventu?, association, ]
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
thi~ and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, d~strict or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting ~ a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~~~::~:~._ ........
Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P c~'.,,,~."'~-r.~,,/ .,,t,/~ ~-~,~r~ f'~,'~.
A-110 Print or type name of applicant ~