HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/08/26 AGENDA
City PLanning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, August 26, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of June 10, June 24, July. 8 and July 22, 1987
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed 5
minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-2: Request to retain existing lot
coverage at 46.2% for a single family dwelling at
165 Murray Street - Joseph A. Raso
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-87-11: Consideration of a tentative subdivision
map for Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11, located
on the south side of Oxford Street at Cuyamaca Avenue -
Gentry Construction Company
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-5: Consideration of an amendment to the Certified
Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP)
4. OTHER BUSINESS: Report on Heritage Park, PCM-88-8
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of September 16, 1987
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting
of August 26, 1987
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-88-2; Request to retain existing lot
coverage of 46.2% at 165 Murray Street - J. Anthony
Raso
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to retain the existing lot coverage at
46.2% for the single-family dwelling at 165 Murray Street in the R-1
zone rather than reducing the lot coverage to 40% as called for by
the Municipal Code.
2. The history of this matter dates back to February, 1986. Following
is a recap of events:
2/26/86 - Official Stop Work Order issued to the applicant because
the house contained a third story, exceeded lot coverage
and numerous discrepancies were noted in the field compared
with the approved building plans (including a stairway to
the upper level and an overall roof height of 42 feet).
3/24/86 - Variance filed by applicant to increase lot coverage from
40 to 61 percent and allow a third story.
4/23/86 - Planning Commission denied the variance request 5-0 with
one abstention and one member absent.
5/06/86 - City Council denied the variance but indicated they might
be willing to reconsider based upon the applicant's offer
to redesign the house and work with the Design Review
Committee on alternate designs.
5/19/86 - The Design Review Committee was unable to make a
6/05/86 recommendation on the exterior building design because of a
lack of detail on the plans. They suggested professional
design assistance be sought by the applicant. He declined.
6/11/86 - The Planning Commission reconsidered the variance request
and denied it 6-0 with one member absent.
6/17/86 - City Council reconsidered the variance and adopted staff
recommendation and resolution, 4-1. This action was to
deny the variance request for the third story and deny the
lot coverage variance for 61%, but approve a variance for
46.2%. The latter was based on conditions which called for
removal of the accessory building, lowering the roof height
to a maximum 30 feet to the highest point and the exterior
design being r---eviewed and approved by the Design Review
Committee. Staff was to work with the applicant on a
redesign and come back to Council with cost estimates for
implementation. City participation in the cost for design
was expressed as a possibility.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 2
7/8/86 - Planning Department report on process to select an
architect for redesign of the house exterior accepted by
Council. City Attorney to prepare an agreement to be
executed with the applicant.
8/5/86 - City Council decided not to proceed with architectural
redesign. Council unanimously revoked its previous partial
variance approval and denie~ the lot coverage variance and
story variance. T~e applicant was directed to lower the
top of the roof to 35 feet (as depicted on the original
approved building pla-~); remove the shed in the rear yard,
open up the roof area over the swimming pool and remove the
stair access and flooring to the upper level. The work to
all be completed within 120 days of the lifting of the stop
work order.
9/2/86 - Stop work order lifted. All compliance work to be
completed by 1/2/87.
2/10/87 - City Council passed a resolution authorizing a 60-day
extension to complete the work to open up the covered area
over the swimming pool. This period expired 4/10/87.
2/28/87 - Letter sent by Mr. Raso to the Building and Housing
Department that opening up the pool impractical and of no
benefit. Further, additional land has been acquired from
the two lots to the east no longer resulting in the lot
exceeding the 40% coverage limit.
3/13/87 - City Council information item and letter from the Planning
Director to Mr. Raso stating that the lot expansion
solution is unacceptable.
4/07/87 - Drawing received from Mr. Raso as to intent with respect to
improvements now within the attic area.
4/14/87 - Written communication from Mr. Raso to the City Council.
Copies of Council minutes and actions and Planning
Commission actions are included in the Appendix.
4/28/87 - Council directed staff to have an engineering analysis done
on the house to assess the feasibility and approximate cost
of opening the area above the pool.
3. On July 14, 1987, the City Council considered an engineering analysis
which shows that the area above the pool can be opened-up and lot
coverage reduced in three alternative ways at a cost of from $10,000
to $30,000. Council deferred action on this issue to allow Mr. Raso
to pursue a variance to retain the existing lot coverage, but
directed the applicant to comply with the requirement to remove
access and certain improvements to the "attic." (Ref. Ex. "D.")
4. The proposal is exempt from environmental review as a Class
exemption.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 3
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the request.
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
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 retain an expanded single
family dwelling in its present configuration on the lot in question.
The 30 ft. high, 8,000+ sq. ft. single family dwelling covers 4,085
sq. ft. or 46.2% of the lot. Although the floor area ratio (FAR) is
nearly once or twice the allowable 0.45 single family standard, the
building permit for the project was issued prior to the adoption of
the FAR restriction.
D. ANALYSIS
Lot coverage restrictions have been established in order to help control
the size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of
property. In the case of single-family parcels, the standard is
established at 40% lot coverage.
Lot coverage and other 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
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 4
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 .... "
The property under consideration is a level and rectangular 6§'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 applicable R-1
40% 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.
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 restrictions, and the granting of the variance would
represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the same
zone and vicinity. For this reason, we recommend denial of the request.
For the Commission's information, the following section lists the facts
which must be found in order to grant a variance.
E. CONCLUSION
On August 5, 1986, the City Council reached a decision to limit the lot
coverage to 40% and directed the applicant to comply by removing the roof
area over the pool within (120) days. Time extensions were granted with
correspondence coming from the applicant citing the impracticality of
pursuing the required building modification. As noted in the report, an
engineering analysis was finally ordered and completed nearly one year
after the decision. In the interim, the applicant proceeded to complete
the dwelling without providing the required design solution.
The applicant proceeding with the building completion at his own risk has
now applied for a new variance seeking a solution to a problem which was
previously addressed (the denial of ZAV 86-26 in 1986).
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.
There is no apparent hardship peculiar to the property in that the
lot is a level, rectangular parcel containing 8,824 sq. ft. of lot
area which can accommodate 3,530 sq. ft. of coverage under the 40%
R-1 standard. As noted above, the financial burden of reducing lot
coverage is not a hardship justifying a variance.
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 dwelling size can be modified to comply wi th the 40% lot coverage
provision and maintain a total floor area exceeding other single
family dwellings located within the vicinity. Neighboring properties
are at or below 40% coverage.
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 the variance would authorize coverage and bulk in
excess of that enjoyed by adjacent properties. A reduction in
coverage would reduce the visual impact of the dwelling.
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 authorization of the variance is inconsistent with the objectives
of the General Plan as they relate to the visual quality and the
scale of buildings within single family neighborhoods.
WPC 4245P
-I HALSEY ST. ' -
~ ~ m - HALSEY
I
. ~ MURRAY
I
KING
"d" STREET
I
(]?;' J. ANTHO~ aASO ' LOCATORzAv_e6_2e
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
April 14, 1986
Lot Coverage Compliance
EXHIBIT "B"
udUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT EXHIBIT "D"
Item
Meeting Date
ITEM TITLE: RepoFt: Resu)ts of a structuFa) eng)neer)ng ana)ysis on opening the area
above the indoor swimming pool at 165 Murray Street
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Building and Housing (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No__.)
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the report and direct staff in the choice of
options to follow to resolve the opening of the area above the swimming pool.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
BACKGROUND: Mr. Raso was issued a STOP WORK order in early 1986 for failure to follow
his approved buildlng plans. He was permitted to resume work in early September provided
he comply with City Council directions to lower the roof height to 35 feet, remove the
shed in the rear yard, remove door access to the attic, and open the second floor and
roof area above the swimming pool. The work was to be completed withln 120 days from the
resumption of work.
Mr. Raso worked dilige6tly on the house, but was not able to finish all of the work within
120 days. On February 10, t987 City Council passed a resolution authorizing a 60 day ex-
tension to complete the work to open the covered area above the pool.
On February 28, 1987 Mn. Raso informed the Building and Housing Department by letter that
9 general contractors who inspected his home told him it was not only impractical, but
close to impossible to open the area above the pool.
On April 9, 1987 Mr. Raso sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council stating that he
could not open the area above the roof due to his limited abilities and finances, and he
requested approval of the use of additional land acquired from his neighbors tO fulfill
his lot coverage requirements.
On April 28, 1987 the City Council directed staff to have an engineering analysis done on
the Raso house to assess the feasibility and approximate cost of opening the area above the
pool.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Ed Kaya, Structural Engineer investigated the house, made a structural analysis and
provided plans along with the following conceptual recommendations:
Concept #1 consists of leaving the exterior walls as they are and removing the roof decking
material and the second floor ceiling and floor, and first story ceiling so that the floor
and ceiling joist remain, but all of the rest of the area is open to the sky. This could
involve a good deal of labor since the floor and ceiling material have to be removed care-
fully in order to preserve the structural integrity of the joist. This would also involve
the installation of two large 6 x 14 beams installedsideway on the northern exterior wall
in order to take up the lateral shear lost by the removal of the floor and roof sheathing.
In addition the remaining exterior walls would have to be treated on the inside to make
them weather resistant. The remaining exposed joist above the pool would also have to be
covered with stucco or some other weather resistant material to protect their structural
integrity as required by the building code. The estimated materia! and labor cost for all
of this would be approximately $15,000 to $20,000.
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
Concept #2 involves the demolition and removal of all of the building area above the
swimming pool. This consists of a habitable deck on the third level, and the entire
second floor area, both of which measure 22' X 46.5~. This would remove a two level
area from the house totaling 2,046 square feet. In its place a lightweight, glass,
greenhouse or solarium-like structure would be installed over the pool. The glass
structure would be tapered down from the second story to cover the pool down to the
first story level. The glass structure would be much less imposing then the existing
house and would appear to remove a great deal of mass from the structure. The demo-
lition of the area above the pool and replacement with a solar greenhouse would cost
approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
A third concept not recommended by the structural engineer, but requested by staff
involved the demolition and removal of the two levels above the pool, leaving the pool
entirely outside of the house. This would additionally involve the construction of
two outside walls to protect the house from the elements. The total cost of this would
be approximately $10,000.
In the course of investigating and analyzing the above information, the engineer also
found that the as built condition of the house is different from the permit plans and
calculations in the exterior wails in the pool area. These conditions effect the wind
and seismic loads on the walls and must be corrected before any framing inspection is
made or any changes are made to the pool area. Mr Kaya discussed these problems with
Warren Hubbard, the owner's engineer. Mr. Raso has also been informed of the problem
and advised to consult with his engineer for a speedy solutlon.
The Acting Director of Building and Housing is requesting that the City Council review
the three concepts presented here and direct staff as to what action should be taken
to resolve the opening of the area above the pool.
FISCAL IMPACT:
EXHIBTT "E" 1 of 8)
EXHIBIT "E" (2 of 8)
EXHIBIT "E" (3 of 8
EXHIBIT "E" (4 of 8)
T ~0 Z~ 6 0 L S ~ -0 Z t~-6 ~ 9
V I N It 0:11 I V 3 ' V I $ I A V 1 I1H D
~T// i
EXHiBiT "E" (5 of 8)
EXHIBIT "E" (6 of 8)
EXHIBIT "E" (7 of 8)
5FCT 1'o~4 A-A .(?~,":t:o)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
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, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
~tu_re, association,
(.NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~
~ture of ~ppllcant/dat~
WPC 0701P
A-IlO P~nt or t~pe name o~ ~pp~icant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-87-11 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for
Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11 - Gentry
Construction company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as
Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11 in order to subdivide 5.5
acres located on the south side of Oxford Street at Cuyamaca Avenue
into 18 single-family residential lots and one open space lot.
2. An Initial Study, IS-87-63, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator
on August 14, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded
that there would be no significant environmental effects and
recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-63.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11, subject
to the following conditions:
a. A landscape and irrigation plan for open space Lot A and the
southerly row along Tranquilo Court shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Landscape Architect prior to the
approval of a final map.
b. CC&R's shall provide for a Homeowners Association to maintain
the landscaping and irrigation, and a copy shall be filed with
the City making the City a party thereto prior to the
recordation of the final map.
c. A fencing plan for the perimeter of the development area shall
be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits. The plan shall include a decorative fencing
program for the perimeter abutting open space Lot A street and
also for the exterior sideyards of Lots 1 & 4, if any, and the
northerly line of Tranquilo Court extending from Lot 4 to the
front setback line of Lot 5.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 2
d. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full
public improvements for all streets shown on the Tentative Map
within or adjacent to the Subdivision. Said improvements shall
include but not be limited to: A.C. pavement, base, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, sewer and water facilities, drainage
facilities, street trees, street lights and signs. Said
improvements shall be guaranteed prior to approval of the
subdivision map.
e. The subdivider shall be responsible for the construction of
offsite street improvements along the subdivision frontage on
Oxford Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
f. The cul-de-sac at Tranquilo Court shall be reviseU to provide
parking on both sides of the street up to the westerly boundary
of lot 12.
g. The vertical alignment of Tranquilo Court shall be revised to
provide vertical curves conforming with CalTrans' stopping sight
distance requirements.
h. The developer shall be responsible for providing the necessary
right-of-way to provide sufficient room to install required
improvements, including utilities. Offsite right-of-way shall
be acquired and dedicated prior to approval of the Final
Subdivision Map. It the developer requests that the City use
its powers to acquire said offsite right-of-way, the developer
shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect, incurred in said
acquisition.
i. The developer shall grant easements for street tree planting and
maintenance along dedicated streets including Oxford Street.
This requirement shall not apply to Tranquilo Court where houses
do not front on the street.
j. Lot 2 shall be provided sewer service via Oxford Street, unless
a private easement is granted to lot 2, to sewer across lot 3.
k. The drainage system serving lots 12-18 shall be maintained by
the Homeowner's Association.
1. Graded access shall be proviUed to all public stom drain
structures.
m. Developer shall be responsible for replacing the existing curb
inlet and storm drain at the intersection of Tranquilo Court and
Hilltop Drive with the necessary structures to provide adequate
drainage.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 3
n. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to
detailed approval by. the City Engineer at the time of
submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be
accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision
Manual and the Grading Ordinance (~1797 as amended).
o. Developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for any
offsite grading prior to issuance of grading permits.
p. The driveway serving lot 1-4 shall be subject to detailed review
for compliance with City standards. Preliminary plans for said
driveway shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review at
the time of submittal of improvement plans.
q. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the City bench mark
system.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Single family
South R-1 Single family
East R-1 Single family
West R-1 & RV-15 Single & two family
Existing site characteristics.
The property in question is a remnant parcel located to the rear of and
surrounded by established single family lots and three duplexes currently
under construction (please refer to locator). The bulk of the parcel is a
rectangle which rises 50-60 ft. from north to south. The site has
frontage on Cuyamaca Avenue at the southwesterly corner of the rectangle,
and two projections of land from the northwesterly corner of the rectangle
provide frontage on Hilltop Drive and East Oxford Street.
Proposed development.
The proposal is to subdivide the property into 18 single family lots. Six
of the lots would be oriented to the south on the higher elevations of the
site and served by an extension of Cuyamaca Avenue. Two lots on the north
half of the northerly projection would receive access from E. Oxford
Street, and the remaining l0 lots would be served by a long cul-de-sac off
Hilltop Drive.
With the exception of one 6,270 sq. ft. lot, all of the lots are 7,000 sq.
ft. or greater. A majority of the lots are split-level pads designed to
take advantage of the topography. There are four panhandle lots proposed,
three located in the long cul-de-sac, Tranquilo Court, and one off E.
Oxford. An open space lot and row along Tranquilo Court along the
southerly property line would maintained by a Homeowners Association.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 4
Cuyamaca Court, the short cul-de-sac extending from Cuyamaca Avenue, will
provide parking on both sides, as will the portion of Tranquilo Court
within the project area. The portion of Tranquilo between the project and
Hilltop Drive will have parking and sidewalk on the north side only. The
off-site properties abutting this north side will now receive access from
the street rather than from a parallel 20 ft.-wide private drive
previously approved by the County to serve these lots. The properties to
the south front upon E. Olympia Court with substantial slopes separating
their rear yards from the new street.
Due to the unique location of the project in relation to surrounding
developments, we have recommended that the subdivider submit a perimeter
fencing plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
D. ENGINEERING CODE REOUIREMENTS
The following are standard Code requirements:
1. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in
accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building
permits.
2. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not
limited to Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities
lying within the Subdivision. All utilities serving the Subdivision
shall be undergrounded.
4. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended.
5. The developer shall install street trees in accordance with Section
18.28.10 of Chula Vista Municipal Code.
6. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of Final Maps and all plans shall
be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act,
Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula
Vista.
E. FINDING
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Hidden Meadows, Chula Vista Tract 87-11, is found to
be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan
based on the following:
1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and
the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for
such projects.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 5
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The General Plan designation is Medium Density
Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre). The project density
of 3.3 dwelling units per acre is compatible with both the R-1
zone and the General Plan designation.
b. Circulation Full street improvements will be required in
conjunction with the subdivision.
c. Housing - The project will provide additional single family home
ownership opportunities.
d. Conservation - The site is not known to contain any
irreplaceable natural resources or endangered species.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The developer is required to
pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating
and improving parkland.
f. Seismic Safety The site is not located adjacent to an
identified or inferred geologic fault.
g. Safety - The site is within the response time of both police and
fire services.
h. Noise - The resulting single family units will be required to
meet U.B.C. standards in terms of acceptable interior noise
levels.
i. Scenic Highway The site does not abut a scenic route or
gateway.
j. Bicycle Routes - Adjoining streets have not been designated as
bicycle routes.
k. Public Buildings No public buildings are planned for the
property.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this
approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those
needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City
and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
WPC 4199P/2659P
~OCATOR
PCS-87-11
~o.
~HORTH_,, ,~x,o..,...o.,.o STREETS
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Hidden Meadows
PROJECT LOCATION: See attached locator map
PROJECT APPLICANT: Gentry Construction Company
CASE NO: IS-87-63 DATE: July 9, 1987
A. Project Setting
The project location is south of Oxford Street and east of HilltoP Drive
(see attached locator map). The property has an irregular shape and is
surrounded by single family detached dwellings. The General Plan
designates the property and the surrounding area as Medium Density
Residential 14-12 DU/AC). The area functions as a minor drainage area and
contains minor areas of ponding. The biology of the area has been greatly
disturbed by the introduction of non-native species. The area could be a
valuable riparian habitat; however, because~of the intrusion of adjacent
development and non-native species, any value has been eliminated.
The Sweetwater Union High School District has responded to the notice of
the Initial Study of this project with the following information and the
Chula Vista Elementary School District was contacted for their information:
Permanent Unhoused
School Capacity Enrollment Students
Castle Park High 1,568 1,828 260
Castle Park Middle 1,456 1,098 -358
Castle Park Elementary 580 580* -O-
*Estimate for fall
This project site is located within the urbanized area of Chula Vista;
there are no substantial natural nor cultural resources present.
B. Project Description
The project consists of the subdivision of the property into 18 lots for
single family dwellings on these 5.5 acres. About 24,000+ cubic yards of
grading would be required to implement the project. Maximum depth of cut
would be 13~ feet and maximum depth of fill would be 18+ feet.
The development of the site would be with 18 single family dwellings with
primary three bedroom, and perhaps some four bedroom units, up to 1,500
sq. ft.
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
-2-
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Chula
Vista and the zoning of the subject property.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
The following areas of potential impact have been identified in Section I
Analysis of the Initial Study of this project and, therefore, warrant
additional discussion:
There is a potential that expansive and/or alluvial soils may be
present on the site. Experience has indicated that no substantial
problems have existed on adjacent properties and, therefore, no
significant impact should result.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Expansive Soils. - Standard Development Regulations - All recommendations
of the Project Soils Engineer will be followed.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the above discussed data and the Initial Study for this project,
it is found that all impacts have been reduced to a level less than
significant:
1. The project involves no significant resources neither natural nor
cultural. The site is surrounded by urbanized development.
2. The proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan of
the City of Chula Vista and zoning of the property (R-l).
3. This project is an "in-fill" project and has a limited cumulative
impact. The provision of public service under these circumstances
can be dealt with, in the cases of schools and parks, through the
payment of fees. There is no designation for such facilities on this
property.
4. There will be no emission of any pollutants nor any noise that will
violate any standard that will affect any human being.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
-3-
Applicant's Agent: Gentry Construction Co.
355 K Street, Suite N
Chula Vista, CA 92010
2. Documents
Chula Vista Municipal code
Chula Vista General Plan, and all
the Elements thereof
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.
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
WPC 4234P/01 75P
cily of Chula vista planning department CIWOF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA..
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
I'AP?LICANT'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.
Billy I Gentry
Thomas W. Gentry
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Billy I Gentry
Thomas W. Gentry
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.
N/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.
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 x If yes, please indicate person(s) N/A
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, join'-~venture, asso~l
~ 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 actin~ as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Sign~cure of/~pplicant/dat~e
Gentry Construction Company
WPC 0701P By Billy I Gentry
A-ll0 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendments to the Certified Local Coastal
Program and Bayfront Specific Plan
A. BACKGROUND
The following amendments to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program are being proposed:
1. A temporary redesign of the approved intersection of the Interstate 5
southbound off-ramp at Bay Boulevard just north of "E" Street; and
2. Incorporating into the LCP a provision for granting special
exceptions to the prohibition of grading between November 1 and April
1 each year on properties located within the Inland Parcel {Subarea
6).
A six-week local review period for these amendments began on August 2,
1987 and will end on September 12, 1987. Environmental review has been
completed, and Negative Declarations IS-87-52 and IS-88-6 have been
issued. A City Council public hearing will be held on September 8, at
which time the Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to
Council members. Subsequently, the amendments will be forwarded to the
Coastal Commission for review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing
and adopt a motion recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution:
a. Finding that the proposed LCP amendments will have no significant environmental impact and adopting Negative
Declarations IS-87-52 and IS-88-6; and
b. Approving the proposed LCP amendments as presented.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Interstate-5 Southbound Off-ramp
A loop configuration for the southbound Interstate-5 on/off ramp at
"E" Street (Northwest quadrant) is planned in the Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan. This improvement of the current
"diamond design" was approved to accommodate increased traffic
volumes anticipated to result from Bayfront development.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 2
The permanent ramp system when completed will include:
l) relocation of the existing off-ramp to the west which will allow
space to construct an on-ramp and will provide added vehicle
stacking area;
2) addition of a loop on-ramp which will allow traffic moving west
on "E" Street to enter southbound Interstate-5 without having to
cross "E" Street; and
3) Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street will be closed and no longer
be available to serve as a surface street or provide access to
property located north of "E" Street.
(See Exhibit A for permanent configuration.)
On March 19, 1967, the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
approved an agreement with CALTRANS for the construction of the new
on/off ramp facility. The Agency will provide the land and CALTRANS
will undertake the construction. CALTRANS' funding has been approved
and the work is scheduled to begin during the Spring of 1988. Delay
of construction could jeopardize funding.
Since major Bayfront development has not occurred to date, which will
entail a street system providing access to commercial property
located north of "E" Street, the ramp improvements had to be modified
to use Bay Boulevard as access to the north (Exhibit B). Also, the
off-ramp has been redesigned to "T" into Bay Boulevard until future
bayfront street improvements are installed. At that future date, Bay
Boulevard will be closed to through traffic and will become part of
the southbound off-ramp then to intersect directly into "E" Street
(Exhibit A). Although this modification is a temporary situation, it
requires an LCP amendment prior to project implementation.
The following amendment to the Bayfront Land Use Plan is proposed to
allow the temporary redesign of the off-ramp intersection with Bay
Boulevard and use Bay Boulevard for north and south vehicle traffic:
A. Add new section to page III-19 of Land Use Plan following last
paragraph under heading of Bay Boulevard connectors and Freeway
Ramp.
Interim Off-ramp Design at Bay Boulevard and 1-5
Until the permanent on- and off-ramp improvements, as described
on Figure 7, are installed at the northwest quadrant of 1-5 and
"E' Street an interim design for the southbound off-ramp shall
be permitted. Interim improvements shall consist of the
southbound off-ramp intersecting with Bay Boulevard and opening
Bay Boulevard (north of "E" Street) to northbound and southbound
traffic as shown on Figure 7a.
B. Add Figure 7a following Figure 7. (Exhibit C of this report.)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 3
Figure 7a shows Bay Boulevard open to north and southbound traffic.
Vehicles driving north on Bay Boulevard will be able to access the freeway
on-ramp (southbound I-5) or continue north to future commercial
development. Vehicles exiting I-5 will intersect Bay Boulevard and be
able to turn north to the commercial site or south to "E" Street. Traffic
signal control devices will be installed at both the intersection of the
on-/off-ramp and Bay Boulevard and "E" Street and Bay Boulevard.
The City Engineer and Traffic Division have reviewed the proposed
amendment and find that the temporary redesign should facilitate existing
traffic circulation at the I-5/"E" Street interchange. When major
Bayfront development occurs the increased traffic anticipated as a result
will warrant implementation of the permanent off-ramp improvements.
2. Exception to Grading Prohibition
In a letter dated February 13, 1987, Mr. John Fischer, District Design
Engineer for CALTRANS, requested an exception to Section 19.87.07 of the
Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan which prohibits grading activities
within the period from November 1 to April 1 each year. Prior to granting
approval for the requested exception, the City of Chula Vista must amend
its Local Coastal Program (LCP).
The exception was requested by CALTRANS because the contractor working on
the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel/State Route 54 project would like to
place fill on the property just east of Broadway and south of the flood
control channel. That property is referred to as the Inland Parcel
(Subarea 6) in the City's LCP. Exhibit D shows the precise location of
this site.
The proposed amendment entails modifying the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific
Plan (which is also the zoning ordinance for the Chula Vista Coastal Zone)
to allow grading and stockpiling activities on all properties located
within the Inland Parcel between November 1 and April 1. Approvals for
grading between November 1 and Apri! 1 will be granted only followin§ a
review of specific grading (or stockpiling) plans to ensure that adequate
protection from siltation in wetlands will be provided. The landscaping
requirements in Section 19.87.07 of the Specific Plan will continue to
apply to the Inland Parcel with the exception of the requirement for
planting prior to November 1. In this area, landscape planting will be
required to coincide with specific conditions for each proposed project.
The followin§ amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan is proposed:
A. Modify Section 19.87.07 Grading and Drainage on page 38 as
follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987 Page 4
All grading activities ~6Y//btt~/~J/~/~ and installation
of erosion sedimentation devices shall be prohibited within the
period from November 1 to April 1 of each year/ with the exception
of grading and stockpiling activities on properties located within
the inland parcel located east of Interstate 5.
Permits issued for grading on properties within the inland parcel may
include a special provision for grading and installation of erosion
control devices between November 1 and April 1 based on a
case-by-case review of grading plans for adequate protection from
siltation in wetlands. Prior to deposition of dredged material,
dikes must be constructed to safely contain the fill material. Silt
fences or other acceptable preventive measures shall be required to
minimize the potential for siltation in wetlands from other ~rading
and stockpiling activities.
Because of the potential for siltation in wetland areas that could
result from gradin9 during wet months, the following additional
measures will be required for grading within the Inland Parcel
- Prior to issuing Coastal Development permits or amending
existing Coastal Development permits to allow grading and
installation of erosion control devices, grading plans will be
reviewed for adequate protection from siltation in wetlands.
- Prior to the deposition of dredged material, dikes must be
constructed to safely contain the dredged material.
- Silt fences or other acceptable measures for the prevention of
siltation will be required to minimize the potential for
siltation in wetlands.
All permanent erosion control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to any on-site grading activities.
All areas disturlb~ed by grading shall be planted with 60 days
of the initial- disturbance and prior to November 1, (within the
Inland Parcel the date shall be specified) with temporary or
permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods.
Such planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a
licensed landscape architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching,
fertilization and irrigation adequate to provide 90% coverage within
90 days. Planting shall be repeated if the required level of
coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to all
disturfb~%ed soils including stockpiles~ and properties within
the Tnland parcel. The requirement for planting prior to November 1
shall not apply, however, to properties within the Inland Parcel for
which specific exceptions to the grading period are granted through
the coastal development permit process.
WPC 3080H
EXHIBIT "A"
~_.
FIJTIJR£ MARINA PARKWAY ~ ' ' '1:' STREI~T
o~-~a~ co~au~a,~o~
EXHIBIT "B"
§
STREET
TEMPORARY SOUTHBOUND
OFF-RAMP/BAY BLVD INTERSECTION
- ,,,' / EXHIBIT "C"
FIGU~ 7A ~
EXHIBIT "D"
........... ~ ...... INLAND PARCEL ~)llJ i
/-- Subarea #6 ~ ~i
o, []
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: I-5/"E" Street Interchange Modification
PROJECT LOCATION: North of "E" Street, between I-5 and Bay Boulevard
PROJECT APPLICANT: Community Development Director
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
CASE NO: IS-87-52 DATE: July 13, 1987
A. Project Settin9
The project site is located north of "E" Street, between Bay Boulevard and
I-5. The area has been previously used for an automobile recycling
facility and is void of any natural or cultural resources. Previous tests
have shown that no significant archaeological or biological resources are
present.
Soil tests in the project vicinity and on-site have indicated that it is
not likely that any adverse soil conditions are present that could
adversely affect any development of the property. Being adjacent to I-5,
the area is subject to acoustical impacts due to traffic noise and also
air quality impacts from the freeway could take place.
There are no wetlands or waterway of the United States present that could
be affected by the proposed project. However, because the site was
previously used as an automobile wrecking yard, the upper 4 inches+ of
much of the soil has been contaminated with automobile related liq~ds.
These liquids included oil, gasoline, brake and power steering fluid.
B. Project Description
The circulation system of th~ Local Coastal plan would be modified to
provide that the southbound "E" Street off-ramp would "T" into Bay
Boulevard and Bay Boulevard and on an interim basis access to a hotel site
north of the project would be provided by Bay Boulevard until Tidelands
Avenue is extended to the north of "E" Street {see Exhibit "A" and "B").
This Negative Declaration is intended to evaluate all actions regarding
this proposal from Coastal Plan Amendment through actual construction of
the facility (see attached plan diagrams).
C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans
The General Plan only delineates an interchange at "E" Street and I-5,
there are no details regarding its configuration; therefore, no change in
the General Plan is required.
city of chula vista planning department CrlYOF
environmental review section_ CHULA Vlffl*A
-2-
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
There are four areas of potential impact that could result in potentially
significant impact, they are:
1. Expansion soils. Although there are expansion soils in the project
vicinity which could adversely impact the proposed development
project, soil tests on this site have shown that there are no
significant soil conditions present.
2. Hazardous Materials. Soil tests have also shown that the upper few
inches of soils were contaminated by automobile related fluids.
These substances are not of a concentration to make them a
potentially significant impact. These soils can be managed on-site.
If any substantial concentration is encountered, it may be necessary
to transport the material to a suitable disposal site; this is
unlikely.
3. Mobile Air Quality. Because the project site is adjacent to I-5, it
is subject to potential adverse air quality impacts. The proposed
project will not change this condition, and because of its nature (a
change in interchange configurations), no significant impact will
result in this physical change in the environment.
4. Noise levels. The realignment of the interchange system brings the
southbound off-ramp slightly closer to the visitor commercial site to
the north of the project site. This shift is very slight and will
not substantially be more adverse than the existing condition. In
any event, the visitor commercial site will be subject to an
acoustical study which will avoid any significant impact.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
The following mitigation measures will assure the avoidance of any
substantial and adverse environmental effects:
1. Expansive Soils - Standard Development Regulation - Implementation of
all recommendations of the Soils Engineer for the project will avoid
any substantial environmental impact.
2. Hazardous Materials -
a. Standard Development Regulations - Any hazardous materials found
on-site will be disposed of on-site in an area which would avoid
any runoff potential impact on wetlands.
b. Mitigation. If any substantial concentration of hazardous
materials are found, they will be contained and transported to a
suitable disposal site. All soils will be examined and tested
during the grading operation to assure the discovery of any
potential concentration.
-3-
3. Mobile Air Quality. No significant impact nor change in impacts will
result from the interim nor permanent interchange facility.
4. Noise Level. - Standard Development Regulation The acoustical
analysis and regulation required by the Building Code Ifor both the
tempora~ and permanent configurations) will assure no significant
acoustical impact due to this alignment change.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the above discussion and the Initial Study for this project, it
found that all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level:
1. The project will not degrade the previously developed nature of the
site. There are not natural nor cultural resources present which
could be adversely effected by the proposed interchange
modifications. Any potential down stream runoff impact from the site
and its previous use will be mitigated through the development
improvements of the site.
2. The project is in basic conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan
and constitutes a minor temporary Local Coastal Plan circulation
element change. There will be no achievement of short term to the
disadvantage of long term goals.
3. All cumulative impacts of this and other projects in the vicinity
have been addressed in the other environmental documents noted below
(see G.2.). There are some cumulative impacts which could be
significant, however, mitigation identified in those documents and
which are being implemented will avoid any cumulative impact.
4. Because all acoustical impacts from transportation noise will be
mitigated through State (Building Code) regulations, there will be no
change in air quality impacts because of the interchange
re-configuration and all potential hazardous materials will be
adequately disposed of on- or off-site. There will be no adverse
impacts on human beings.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
Community Development Department
-4-
2. Documents
EIR-77-4 Bayfront EIR
EIR-79-6 Bay Boulevard EIR
EIR-85-1 Bayfront Specific Plan EIR
EIR-86-1 Mid Bayfront Specific Plan Amendment EIR
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista General Plan (all Elements)
Bayfront Local Coastal Plan
Bayfront Specific Plan
Bayfront Land Use Plan
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
~,.~, EW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
WPC 4231P/WPC 0175P
city of chula vista planning department CIWOF
environmental review section CHULAVISTA,.
EXHIBIT "A"
,
~J
SOUTHBO ~"
FUTURE PERMANENT SOUTHHBOUND
OFF-RAMP CONFIGURATION
- ~ EXHIBIT "B"
,.I
i~l. ~ ,.,i
I..-
0
U.I
.SOUTHBOUND~
~ '£' STRE£T
TEMPORARY SOUTHBOUND
OFF-RAMP/BAY BLVD INTERSECTION
negativ declaration
PROJECT NAME: Local Coastal Program Amendment for Exception to Grading Prohibition
PROJECT LOCATION: Chula Vista Coastal Zone -- Inland Parcel (east of Interstate 5)
PROJECT APPLICANT: Mr. John Fischer
CalTrans, District ll
P.O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA. 92138-5406
CASE NO: IS-88-6 DATE: August 7, 1987
A. Project Setting
In a letter dated February 13, 1987, Mr. John Fischer, District Design
Engineer for CalTrans, requested an exception to Section 19.87.07 of the
Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan which prohibits grading activities
within the period from November 1 to April l- each year. Prior to granting
approval for the requested exception, the City of Chula Vista must amend
its Local Coastal Program (LCP).
The exception was requested by CalTrans because the contractor working on
the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel/State Route 54 project would like to
place fill on the property just east of Broadway and south of the flood
control channel. That property is referred to as the inland parcel in the
City's LCP. Fi9ure 1 shows the precise location of the inland-parcel.
B. Project Description
The proposed project entails amending the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific
Plan (which is also the zoning.ordinance for the Chula Vista Coastal Zone)
to allow grading and stockpiling activities on properties located within
the inland parcel between November 1 and April 1. Approvals for grading
between November 1 and April 1 would be granted only following a review of
specific grading (or stockpiling) plans to ensure that adequate protection
from siltation in wetlands will be provided. The landscaping requirements
in Section 19.87.07 will continue to apply to the inland parcel.
C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans
Grading in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone is prohibited between November 1
and April 1 each year by Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan
Ithe zoning ordinance). The proposed LCP amendment would allow for
exceptions to the prohibition on grading within the inland parcel between
November 1 and April 1 each year following a case-by-case review of
grading plans to ensure adequate protection from siltation in wetlands.
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section_CHULAVISTA
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
The potential environmental effects of amending the Bayfront Specific Plan
to allow exceptions to the grading prohibition between November 1 and
April 1 on properties located within the inland parcel include:
- Siltation in wetlands may occur if grading is allowed between
November 1 and April 1.
- Fill material may not be adequately contained {resulting in siltation
in wetlands) if deposition of dredged material is allowed between
November 1 to April 1.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following circumstances, the potential environmental effects
were found to be less than significant.
Prior to issuing Coastal Development Permits or amending existing
Coastal Development Permits to allow grading and installation of
erosion control devices, grading plans will be reviewed for adequate
protection from siltation in wetlands.
- Prior to the deposition of dredged material, dikes must be
constructed to safely contain the dredged material.
- The potential for siltation in wetlands resulting from allowing
grading and stockpiling activities between November 1 and April 1
will be minimized by requiring silt fences or other acceptable
preventive measures.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Robin Putnam, Community Development
Applicant: Mr. John Fischer, CalTrans District Design Engineer
-3-
2. Documents
EIR-85-1, Bayfront Specific Plan
¥ Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan
(Sedway Cooke Associates 1983)
Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan
(City of Chula Vista 1984)
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.
ENVIRONRE41TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 3065H/O175P
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department ¢IWOF
environmental review section CHUL,~ VLN-'rA
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of August 26, 1987
4. OTHER BUSINESS: Report on Heritage Park, PCM-88-8
To: Chairperson & Members of Planning Commission
From: George Krempl, Director of Planning6/~
Subject: Referral of Heritage Park Report, PCM-88-8
The attached report was submitted for City Council consideration in
July of this year at which time staff was directed to present the
report to various City commissions for input.
The Resource Conservation Commission considered the report at their
meeting of August 17, 1987 and voted to endorse staff options 2 and 3.
The Parks & Recreation Commission will consider the report in
September.
The Planning Commission is also being asked to review the report and
provide input and/or recommendations.
GK:je
Attachment
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 7/28/87
ITEM TITLE: Report on creation of Heritage Park on Second Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X )
The City Council has directed staff to study the feasibility of purchasing
sites for a Heritage Park at 614 through 644 Second Avenue. This report
provides a preliminary discussion of this proposal and two other options
involving the subject properties.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council decide which option if any it wishes to pursue
and direct us accordingly. Staff favors option #3 but options #l and #2 are
certainly feasible as well. Also refer the report to the Resource
Conservation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Board and Planning
Commission for review.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None.
BACKGROUND:
The establishment of a Heritage Park or Heritage Row has been the subject of
discussion and examination for at least five years; first in conjunction with
the proposed relocation of "Our House" from 666 Third Avenue and later with
regard to the relocation of "Greg Rogers House" from 699 "E" Street. In each
instance, the task has been to find a suitable relocation site because of the
impending demolition of the structure to make way for commercial development.
In the 1986 State of the City Address, the Mayor discussed the need to
continue the City's efforts to preserve its unique history by acquiring
suitable land to create a Heritage Park. It was subsequently suggested that
the properties at 614 through 644 Second Avenue be considered as an
appropriate location for the park.
The site in question consists of eight single family parcels with a total land
area of 2.9 acres and 430 lineal feet of frontage on the west side of Second
Avenue just to the south of "I" Street. The properties at 614/616 and 642/644
Second Avenue each presently contain two heritage homes, including the Greg
Rogers House which was relocated with City assistance to 616 Second Avenue in
1985.
Specifically, the suggestion has been made that the four existing heritage
homes would remain in private hands and anchor the park on the north and south
edges. The intervening properties, constituting 1.7 acres, would be purchased
as they became available and redeveloped with a park in the front and sites
for the relocation of orchard/historical homes to the rear; in essence
creating a Heritage Square. An assessment district could be formed for park
and exterior maintenance.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date-~-/~2B-/~
DISCUSSION:
Following is an evaluation of three options involving the Second Avenue
properties. The first two options involve City participation in the purchase
and recycling of lots for either an active Heritage Park or passive Heritage
Row. The third option would result in a Heritage District and may or may not
involve City acquisition of sites. The discussion is not intended to be
detailed or exhaustive, but simply to provide a basis for further direction
from Council on which if any of the options it may wish to pursue.
An assumption common to all of the options is that heritage homes within the
600 block of Second Avenue should be maintained as privately-owned
residences. The 600 block of Second Avenue is a stable, quiet single-family
neighborhood. It is believed that a public museum/tour house or
commercial/office use with the attendant levels of noise and activity and
required parking accommodations would be inappropriate in such a setting.
Secondly, the historic integrity of the dwellings would be best maintained as
private residences--the purpose for which they were built. Heritage homes
should remain relatively unchanged in appearance and should be maintained as a
residence in a proper residential setting in order to remain eligible for
Federal and State preservation assistance and to qualify for a place on the
National Historic Register. Residential use guarantees this maintenance.
Finally, if the City were to operate one or more of the dwellings as a museum
or tour house, public funds would have to bear the full and substantial costs
of relocation, land acquisition, exterior and interior restoration, and
continuing maintenance and operations of the structure. (It was estimated in
1984 that the relocation and use of the Greg Rogers House in this manner would
cost $500,000, excluding maintenance and operations.) As private residences,
the City would recover site acquisition costs and the homes would be
relocated, restored and maintained at little or no public expense.
A further assumption, then, is that the interior of the dwellings would not be
open for public inspection except perhaps on a limited basis, by way of
periodic guided tours showing the building's exterior and interior.
Option I: Heritage Park
This option would have a public park surrounded by privately-owned heritage
homes. The City would purchase the five properties between 614/616 and
642/644 Second Avenue and resubdivide the land to create relocation sites for
heritage homes at the rear and a park fronting on Second Avenue.
One approach would have a drive-through encircling the park and fronting the
homes. This roadway would provide access to the heritage homes and allow
closer drive-by viewing by motorists. Parking bays off the roadway could
serve the homes as well as the park, which would be landscaped and provided
with seating areas and/or walkways. One or more times a year, the homes could
be opened for closer inspection and interior tours.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 7/28/87
The advantage of this option is that it would provide several available
relocation sites at one location designed for the display and convenient
public viewing of heritage homes. It could become a focal point for the
community, encouraging other preservation efforts. It could also become a
showpiece for the City and promote civic pride. The full Heritage Park option
also presents several potential problems and disadvantages.
The park, being a public space and City-wide attraction could generate levels
of noise and activity inconsistent with the character of the area and the
residential enjoyment of surrounding residents. It may be difficult to
attract families willing to invest and live within a public exhibit area
considering the likely activity levels, lack of privacy, and potential
security problems. Maintenance costs are unknown, and Federal and State
guidelines for historic preservation are generally not supportive of
heritage-type parks if the environment created is artificial in the historic
context. Finally, the City might eventually be forced to take one or more of
the lots by eminent domain if the park site properties could not be purchased
off the market within a reasonable period of time.
Another possibility to an open, active public use area maintained by the City
might be a more formal garden setting maintained by the homeowners or perhaps
a local garden club. The garden could be enclosed with a wrought iron fence
and be strictly a visual element and setting for the homes. This would
mitigate some of public park usage and maintenance issues.
Option II: Heritage Row
Under this option, the City would also purchase the five properties between
614/616 and 642/644 Second Avenue. The parcels, as presently configured or
after resubdivision, would be held as relocation sites for heritage homes and
returned in their entirety to private ownership with public restrictions.
This approach would create a continuous row of private heritage home
residences along this section of Second Avenue. The City could retain site
plan and design review authority, and could establish restrictions on exterior
modifications and requirements for limited public access via tours of the
grounds and interiors once or twice a year. The City could also establish an
open space easement across the frontage of the lots and develop a landscape
program and maintenance district to enhance and maintain the public view of
the properties.
Like Option I, the Heritage Row concept would create a "theme" area by
providing several contiguous relocation sites for heritage homes. It would
not, however, provide a centerpiece park or other public space from which to
view the homes and would not change the character and activity level within
the neighborhood to the same degree as a Heritage Park. Each heritage home
would stand as a residence in the setting and with the yards and setbacks most
consistent with the historic integrity and liveability of the dwellings.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date-~F7~-8-/1)'F
This option would also not require City funding for the purchase, development
and maintenance of a park site, and could more easily be implemented in
phases, lot-by-lot if necessary. The City could therefore program the funding
over several years and avoid the expense and political consequence of eminent
domain proceedings. Finally, the relocation of heritage homes to a
traditional single family setting is more favorable to the historic integrity
of the dwellings.
Option III: Heritage District
Under Option III, the City would establish a Heritage District to include the
subject lots as well as surrounding properties with historic and/or
architectural significance. The City's historic resources inventory has
identified 30 of the 62 homes within the area bounded by "I" Street, Second
Avenue, "J" Street, and mid-block between Third and Del Mar Avenues as
potentially significant heritage homes. Most of these dwellings as well as
other homes within the area are in excellent to good condition and retain
integrity of design and materials. The Resource Conservation Commssion has
recommended seven of the homes for inclusion in the local register of
historical sites. The "El Nido" house at 669 Del Mar Avenue is already in the
local register.
This approach would primarily involve public incentives and controls rather
than the acquisition of sites; although one or more lots within the district
could be land-banked to facilitate relocations. Design criteria and review
procedures could be established in order to ensure that the historical and
architectural integrity of the area is preserved and enhanced. Low interest
loans could be made available to relocate dwellings to the district and
renovate ones already there.
The district concept is believed to be the one most consistent with the goal
of historical preservation because it recognizes the fact that preservation of
historic dwellings should be in the context of preserving a neighborhood
rather than simply a few homes. This approach is strongly encouraged by State
and Federal preservation programs and thus potential funding and assistance
from these sources is enhanced. The district as a whole would also be
eligible for a place on the National Historic Register.
The area is al ready becoming Chula Vista's unofficial Heritage District,
largely by way of individual initiative and private funds. Official
recognition by the City would reinforce these private efforts and with the
addition of design standards, review procedures and financial incentives,
would provide assurance to existing and new owners that strong public
commitment and protections are in place to preserve and enhance the
neighborhood.
The City could proceed to consider a combination of options--develop a
Heritage Park or Heritage Row along with the establishment of a Heritage
District. The district alone, however, would not require the acquisition of
property as would the other options; although, as noted above, the City could
opt to purchase one or more lots to facilitate relocations in general or to
have a site on hand should a heritage home come under immediate threat of
demolition. Otherwise, public costs would include establishing and
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date~
administering the district regulations and could involve low interest loans
for relocation and/or rehabilitation. Block Grant funds can be used, as was
done with the Greg Rogers House, to assist in rehabilitating historic
dwellings.
None of the Above
The Council could decide to pursue none of the three options. As previously
noted, the neighborhood in question is becoming the City's Heritage District
largely through individual initiative and private funds, and may not
appreciate public intervention or an overlay of public control and
regulation. The City could simply choose to applaud these private efforts and
stand by to assist when and where necessary to save historic structures.
There are also affirmative steps that the City could take now to facilitate
community-wide preservation.
The Municipal Code provides that the City Council may, upon recommendation of
the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC), impose a permit process on
designated historical sites. The permit process can delay the proposed
demolition, substantial alteration, or removal of a historical structure for
up to one year, during which time the City can pursue means to save the
building on-site or, if necessary relocate the structure to a suitable site.
A historical sites inventory has been completed and could provide the basis
for the widespread imposition of the permit process. The RCC has recommended
a total of 33 sites for designation as historical significance of which seven
sites are located in this area.
Conclusion
If the Council decides to further pursue any of the options, we recommend that
staff be directed to refine the analysis accordingly. This would include a
proposed implementation program and schedule, preliminary estimates of costs
and potential revenues, and a program for review and input on the proposal by
effected property owners and surrounding residents. In any event, the
historical sites inventory, along with recommendations to facilitate
preservation in general, would be scheduled for Council consideration prior to
or concurrently with any further analysis of the option chosen.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined as to park development and maintenance.
One of the sites, located at 626 Second Avenue was appraised by the Community
Development Department. The appraisal report done by Robert Harris indicated
a fair market value of $98,000 as of June ll, 1987.
WPC 3790P
JKATO $[
COU
~1111 I IIII Ii- I li;t;:!:[i;!_.l
Recommended by RCC for designation as historical site l~k
north
NO SCALE