Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/08/12 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 12, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 27, 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: Draft EIR-87-1, Rancho del Rey SPA I 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-39M: Request to allow continuance of an RV storage lot at 1383 Broadway Broadway Equities, Ltd. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-44M: Request 1) an application for a new major use permit to allow continuance of an auto scrap yard, and 2) revocation of existing major use permit PCC-86-24M for failure to relocate an auto scrap yard at 128 Mace Street - Sam Block 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-4M: Family Density Bonus, 251 Oxford Street Hector Zuniga 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-36: Request to reduce exterior side yard setback at 844 Woodlawn Avenue - Leandro Alex Esqueda 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-1: Request to establish offices for San Diego County Department of Social Services at 1261 Third Avenue - John M. Orguhart AGENDA August 12, 1987 Page 2 8. OTHER BUSINESS: League of California Cities 1987 Annual Conference ELECTION OF OFFICERS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of August 26, 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 12, 1987 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-87-1 Rancho del Rey SPA I A. BACKGROUND The draft of this EIR was issued for public and agency review on Jun'e 25, 1987. The document is being circulated by the State Clearinghouse and their review period will end August 14, 1987. Comments on water availability were received from Dr. Peter Watry and further comments are anticipated. B. RECOMMENDATION Hold and close the public hearing on this Draft EIR, the Final EIR will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission when the project is considered. Any comments received through the State Clearinghouse will be accepted and responded to in the final EIR. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves consideration of the first Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area, as well as a number of other discretionary actions. The adopted E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan originally included 10 SPAs, with 6 of the 10 subsequently combined into the Corcoran Ranch SPA. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted for the Corcoran Ranch SPA in 1985, and serves as the Master EIR for the pr6posed project. A subsequent addendum to the 1985 Master EIR addressed the reduced environmental impacts of a revised site plan. The current EIR will assess the compliance of the proposed SPA-I Plan with the amended E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the compliance of the project tentative maps with the SPA-I Plan and the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Additionally, this EIR will address potential impacts associated with the SPA-I Plan and tentative maps, and propose pertinent mitigation measures where necessary. The proposed Rancho del Rey development involves the construction of 982 single-family units, and 1219 multi-family units in a variety of density categories on 305.1 acres. In addition, a number of non-residential uses, including an employment park site, community facilities, neighborhood and community parks, a school site, open space, and a circulation system are proposed on 503.5 acres, for a total project area of 808.6 acres. The proposed project varies from the adopted Specific Plan in the density for a number of residential categories. However, this density transfer would not result in an overall increase in residential units, or in any transfer of units in or out of the SPA-I area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 Traffic Circulation and Access Vehicular use associated with the proposed project is projected to result in 41,054 ADT for the SPA-I area. This would produce significant traffic circulation and access impacts within the project vicinity, particularly along East 'H' Street and at the 'H' Street/I-805 interchange. A number of mitigation measures have been developed which would reduce these impacts below levels of significance. This assumption is contingent, however, on the proposed development maintaining a maximum volume of 56,500 vehicles per day on East 'H~ Street east of Hidden Vista Drive prior to the construction of Route 125. The proposed mitigation measures consist primarily of constructing and/or improving a number of roads in the project vicinity to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. Assuming that the referenced maximum ADT are maintained on East 'H' Street, no significant impacts related to traffic would be expected from the proposed project development with implementation of the mitigation measures. An exception to this general statement would be the interim level of service on East 'H' Street, east of Hidden Vista Drive, which on a short term basis prior to the completion of 125 would have a level service D. However, once the circulation system is completed, including 125, there would be no long range significant impacts due to this project and other projects that can be foreseen at this time. Landform/Aesthetics Development of the Rancho del Rey project as proposed would substantially alter the landform and visual character of the site, resulting in a number of highly visible changes to existing topographic features and the creation of large manufactured slopes. Implementation of the grading plan would entail cutting most of the ridges and filling in the lower elevations, including many of the finger canyons. Much of the existing open space in the north and central legs of Rice Canyon would be preserved, however, pursuant to recommendations contained in the 1985 Master EIR. A total of 9,500,000 cubic yards of grading would occur through- out the project site, with maximum cut and fill slopes of 100 and 130 feet, respectively. The proposed grading would result in a number of potential adverse visual impacts within and near the project site, including the alteration of on-and off-site views. Of particular importance with respect to visual alteration are potential impacts to designated Scenic Highways corridors along East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road. Mitigation for potential impacts to landform and visual resources are con- tained within the specific design guidelines of the SPA-I Plan. Additionally, a design manual is currently being prepared which will supplement the SPA-I Plan design criteria. Project development will require the implementation of all the abovd guidelines, including those related to grading, landscaping, fencing, signing, lighting, parking and scenic highways. These guidelines City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 are intended to provide flexible direction through the different levels of project development, rather than to serve as absolute design standards. The impacts from the proposed project associated with landform and visual alteration would be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of the guidelines. Biological Resources Investigation of biological resources associated with the previously considered E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan identified significant, unmitigable impacts related to development of the proposed project. On the basis of these findings, the SPA-I Plan incorporated design modifications and additional mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce biological impacts. Specifically this included the consolidation of open space in the main canyon systems, specific measures to prevent impacts to sensitive species, programs to restore natural habitat to disturbed areas, and the reduction of impacts to wetlands habitat through consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These measures, while realizing a number of reductions to potential impacts, do not change the original assessment that significant, unmitigable biological impacts will result from the proposed project. However, identified mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented, the overall mitigation plan is considered adequate with respect to the proposed development. Potential biological impacts would also be associated with changes in onsite stream channels. Specifically, these would be related to loss of sensitive habitats and/or species related to the construction of drainage improvements in Rice Canyon. Geoloqy/Soils Available data from the site specific geotechnical investigation indicates that there are no major geologic constraints on the project site that would preclude development. Potential identified impacts include the expansion of surficial deposits, the compaction of alluvial soils, the effect of bentonitic clay seams and poorly lithified zones on slope stability, the generation of oversized material from cemented or dense bedrock, and the presence of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone. A number of mitigation measures were identified in the geotechnical investigation, including specific guidelines pertaining to grading, soil and slope stability, fill materials, faulting seismicity, and foundation design. With implementation of the mitigation measures, no significant geotechnical conditions would adversely affect the proposed project. Noise Potential noise impacts associated with the Rancho del Rey project were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Stamina 2.0 noise prediction model. To determine the maximum noise levels that could be experienced onsite, community buildout traffic volumes provided by the technical transportation analysis were used for East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road. Additionally, projected internal traffic volumes and proposed grade elevations were used to model future onsite noise levels. The results of the noise analysis indicate that upon buildout of the proposed project, portions of the site (particularly along East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road) would be subject to noise levels exceeding the City of Chula Vista exterior noise standards. In addition, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 4 areas of the site exposed to noise levels of 65 dB(A) or greater would experience significant interior noise impacts. Mitigation measures have been developed which would reduce the majority of identified noise impacts below levels of significance. These include the use of appropriately sized and located walls, berms, and building setbacks for mitigating exterior noise levels, and the use of appropriate building design and insulating materials to adequately attenuate interior noise levels. Impacts which would not be adequately mitigated by the measures listed above include those associated with the multi-family areas adjacent to East 'H' Street (parcels R-15 and R-14), and the East 'H' Street park (parcel P2). These areas will require further analysis and mitigation once detailed development plans are made available. Schools The Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union High School Districts both assume an average generation rate of 0.3 students per dwelling unit. Based on the proposed 2201 residences for Rancho del Rey, therefore, 660 elementary and 660 secondary students would be generated from the proposed project. While these additional students would result in incremental impacts to existing school facilities, current regional development plans call for the construction of three elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school in the vicinity of the project site. These facilities would reduce nearly all adverse project-related impacts related to schools below levels of significance. The exception to this is related to elementary school capacity, for which a shortage of classroom space is projected in two local schools if current growth rates continue. In addition to the three proposed elementary schools in the project vicinity, a 12.6 acre parcel has been reserved within the Rancho del Rey site for future development of an elementary school (financing for the construction of school facilities has not been determined). While the construction of a new school is not a portion of the currently proposed Rancho del Rey development plan, the elementary school facility would be built once a sufficient number of students were generated. Assuming all of the above measures are implemented, no signfiicant adverse impacts to schools would be expected from the proposed project development. Parks/Recreation and Open Space The Rancho del Rey project proposes to incorporate a series of parks, community facilities, and hiking and equestrian trails totaling 105.2 acres, as well as 227.1 acres of open space. These proposed acreages exceed all appropriate dedication standards of the City of Chula Vista, and would preserve much of the existing open space in Rice and Otay Lakes Canyons. While the location and size of proposed parks and open space is not expected to be an issue, the nature and schedule of development of the parks and recreational facilities are conceptual and have not been finalized. Consequently, a number of mitigation measures have been established relating to the nature and schedule of parks and recreation development, as well as biological and hydrological concerns within the major onsite canyons. These measures will reduce or eliminate adverse impacts related to parks/recreation and open space from the proposed project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 5 Water The projected water demand for the Rancho del Rey project at full buildout would be 1.54 million gallons per day (mgd), with nearly 90 percent utilized by the residential (70 percent) and employment park (19.5 percent) developments. The project proposal includes an internal water convenance system capable of meeting the projected onsite water needs, as well as a number of offsite improvements designed to offset the project's impacts to the regional water distribution system. Specifically, the offsite facilities include a 30-inch water transmission main beneath East 'H' Street, from the proposed Reservoir 22-3 to the intersection of Yuba and 'H' Streets, and, from that point, a 24- inch line to the intersection of 'H' Street and Buena Vista Way. To reduce onsite water demands, however, it is recommended that the water conservation policies currently endorsed by the State of California and the City of Chula Vista be implemented by the Rancho del Rey project. These include various water-saving techniques such as drought-resistant landscaping, drip irrigation systems, low-flow shower and faucet restrictors, and toilet dams. August 3, 1987 TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Planning Commission Members FROM: Peter Watry 81 Second Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 92010 SUBJECT: Water and the E.I.R. for E! Rancho del Rey Environmental Impact Reports dealing with individual projects seldom address the overall question of the availability of water so I am taking the occasion of the E1 Rancho del Rey E.I.R. to offer a broader view of the water problem. I am concentrating on the Otay M.W.D. because ali of the future large projects in Chula Vista, including E1 Rancho del Rey, will be in its District -- plus the United Enterprises property plus Otay Mesa~ Otay Municipal Water District It is easy to be concerned, if not pessimistic, about the Otay M.W.D. Otay M.W.D. is 100% dependent on imported aqueduct water and has very little storage capacity. Now normally the San Diego County Water Authority attempts to supply all the water that their member agencies request, and in the past there have been few instances when they could not. But if significant shortages should occur in the future then they might resort to the "preferential entitlements" that each member agency has. "Preferential entitlements" are based on the proportion of all payments by each agency to S.D.C.W.D. to meet capital costs, including the annexation fees, taxes and that portion of water purchases related to capital expenditures. They have not been used so far. But if "push comes to shove," Otay M.W.D. might be in trouble. Otay M.W.D. has always used more water than their "preferential entitlement" as the following figures for the last 10 years demonstrate: Preferential entitlement Water sales of S.D.C.W.A. Year ending June 30, of Otay M.W.D. to Otay M.W.D. 1986 2.2% 3.2% 1985 2.1% 3.2% 1984 2.1% 3.7% 1983 2.1% 4.0% 19B2- 2.0% 3.2% 1981 1.9% 3.6% 1980 1.9% 3.8% 1979 1.8% 3.9% 1978 1.8% 3.4% 1977 1.7% 2.8% The Otay M.W.D. has been able to use more than "its share" because other member agencies habitually use less than their entitlements, and particularly those agencies that have their own sources of water. The Sweetwater Authority, with two reservoirs, is such an agency. Here are their figures for the last lO years: Preferentia! entitlement Water sales of S.D.C.W.A. Year ending June 30, of Sweetwater Auth. to Sweetwater Auth. 1986 6.9% 4.4% 1985 7.0% 1984 7.2% .0+% 1983 7.3% .0+% 1982 7.6% .0+% 1981 7.6% .0+% 1980 7.7% 1.0% 1979 7.7% 1.4% 1978 7.8% 3.9% 1977 8.0% 4.0% [the ".0+%" means they did buy some water that year, but less than one-tenth of one per cent.] San Diego County Water Authority But just as member agency Otay M.W.D. uses more than their entitlement from the S.D.C.W.A., the S.D.C.W.A. likewise uses more than its entitlement from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). On the next page are the figures I have avai!able for the last 10 years: Preferential entitlement Water sales of M.W.D to Year ending June 30, of S.D.C.W.A. S.D.C.W.A. 1986 11.2% 29.5% 1985 11.2% 27.6% 1984 10.7% 25.7% 1983 not available 24.8% 1982 ' " " 31.2% 1981 " " 27.8% 1980 " " 27.1% 1979 10.9% 27.6% 1978 11% 30% 1977 13% 25% In this case Jt Js the City of Los Angeles which habitually uses less water than its entitlement because the City of Los Angeles has its own aqueduct from Owens ~ ValIey. I would offer the following pessimistic observations about the future availability of water: -- Arizona so far Js using only 30% of their new entitlement to Colorado River water that was until recentiy California's entitlement. In the not too distant future they will probably be taking their ful! entitlement. (See attached letter from M.W.D.) -- People Jn northern California have seemingly been able to easily defeat every attempt to increase the amount of water being transferred r~f6-~-northern California to southern California. The California aqueduct is operating below its capacity because of the defeat of the Peripheral Canal and similar schemes that are required before it can operate at full capacity. -- More and more court rulings seem to be going against the City of Los Angeles in terms of just continuing to drain Owens Valley. On the other hand, in a recent meeting I heard a very optimistic viewpoint expressed by a Director of the Otay M.W.D.: -- A deal w111 soon be made so that Imperial Irrigation District will sell us some of their water. -- The "Galloway project" to purchase or lease water rights from people in other western states in the Colorado River watershed will soon be accomplished. -- The preferential rights of the S.D.C.W.D.A. to M.W.D cannot be enforced. -- He was not aware of the preferential rights of Otay M.W.D. within S.D.C.W.A. Conclusion Recent snow packs have been above normal and Arizona has not yet taken much of their new entitlement, so water Js still plentiful to San Diego. Over the long run, however, when snow packs are normal, and Arizona is taking their full allotment, and southern California grows and grows, and if other people do not sell us their water rights, we could have real difficulties. And the Otay M.W.D. is 11teraI!y and figuratively at the very end of the pipeline. Are you familiar with the behavior of lemmings? METROPOLIT,4N WATER OlSTRI£T OF SOUTHERN £,4LIFORNIA July 28, 1987 Mr. Peter J. Watry, Jr. 81 Second Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Warty: Responding to your letter of July 17, I have enclosed a few publications that respond to your general area of inquiry. You also asked three specific questions that follow, in order: 1. Thus far, what proportion of their new allotment is Arizona taking? The Central Arizona Project is currently moving about 30 percent of the amount of water it is capable of carrying. Arizona has an entitlement to a little over one million acre-feet of water a year. Metropolitan has requested, and been granted, the continued use of surplus Colorado River water and we hope these surpluses will continue for a few more years. 2. When do you estimate that Arizona will be taking their full allotment? It is not likely that Arizona will be able to use its full allotment prior to 1990. At some point in the final decade of the 20th century, the Central Arizona Project will be running at full capacity. It is not likely that Arizona will be leaving water in the river after year 2000. 3. Where do we stand on Imperial Irrigation District negotiations? In your terms, I would state that reaching an agreement with IID is a probability. Negotiations have resumed, there is much common ground, and I think we will reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Please feel free to contact m~ if you lave any additional questions. ~ JWM:rf Public Affairs Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Major Use Permit PCC-87-39M; request to maintain an existing R.V. storage lot now operating illegally at 1383 Broadway - Broadway Equities Ltd. A. BACKGROUND The applicant, Broadway Equities Ltd. established an R.V. storage lot two years ago without obtaining a major use permit from the County. Upon annexation to the City of Chula Vista, zoning enforcement personnel received complaints that storage contained within this lot was unsightly. The owners were notified that the lot was established illegally and that a major use permit must be obtained or the use must be abated. The storage lot is located on San Diego Gas and Electric utility property on the east side of Broadway, south of Palomar Street. An Initial Study, IS-87-56M 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 August 5, 1987, voted to recommend denial of the major use permit request, and to schedule abatement as outlined in the recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-56M. 2. Based on findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to deny the applicant's request to maintain an RV storage lot at 1383 Broadway and set an abatement period for the use to cease operation and vacate the property effective March 31, 1988. Adopt a recommendation to allow the applicant to refile the major use permit, after January l, 1988, if open storage is determined as an appropriate long term land-~-se at this location via the Montgomery Specific Plan. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North C-36 Commercial center South M-52, C-36 Commercial auto center, mini warehouses East RMH-9, S-94 Mobilehome park, SDG&E utility property West S-94, C-36 Vacant, mixed use commercial/residential Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 Existing site characteristics The project site is a rectangular shaped property of 4.5 acres with utility transmission towers bisecting the property from east to west. The existing storage lot contains 373 storage spaces and 35 customer parking spaces surrounded by a 6-foot chain link fence. No screen fencing or landscaping is evident on the property. A.C. paving is present over the front portion of the lot where customer parking takes place; the vehicle storage area is graveled. Proposed use The applicant proposes to maintain the RV storage lot with the addition of wood slats in the existing fence, and installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk along Broadway adjacent to the property, with a landscaping strip 15 to 25 ft. wide along the front of the property adjacent to Broadway. A sign is also proposed at the southwest corner of the property. D. ANALYSIS The issue of illegal establishment of the RV storage yard located at 1383 Broadway first came to the attention of staff in February 1986, when zoning enforcement received complaints that a truck filled with refuse was creating an unsightly appearance within the storage lot as seen from the street. Research into the matter resulted in the finding that no major use permit had been filed or approved for the lot. The major use permit is required under the S-94 zone assigned to all property currently in use for utility transmission lines under ownership by San Diego Gas and Electric. Staff informed the owners of this requirement who indicated that the application would be filed accordingly. When the application was not filed by November of 1986, staff referred the matter back to zoning enforcement, which was then referred to the City Attorney's office for further action. The application was finally submitted for filing on April 27, 1987. During this time period, work on the Montgomery Specific Plan had proceeded to the point, where goals of the specific plan have been formulated, which would discourage the continuation of open land uses in the Montgomery Area as well as encouraging the preservation of the SDG&E right-of-way for either open space or park usage. The RV storage use which the applicant is requesting to maintain stands in direct conflict with this goal. In addition to this, existing zones surrounding this lot do not permit open storage. New commercial developments located on the north side of this lot, the mobilehome park located on the east side of the storage lot and the auto center and mini-warehouse development on the south side all have restrictions in their respective zones prohibiting storage of Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 materials or equipment outside of enclosed buildings. The one exception to this requirement is a small area within the SDG&E right-of-way under license to store RV's owned by the residents of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, as an accessory use. this accessory use was approved under the major use permits granted for development of the park in the late 1960's. It is for these reasons that staff is recommending denial of the application, with an abatement period for the owners to vacate the property effective March 31, 1988. Staff is of the opinion that interim approval of the use pending completion of the specific plan is not appropriate due to the numerous conditions of approval not proposed by the applicant which would need to be fulfilled before the lot met City standards. Those conditions are as follows: 1. Paving within the storage area. 2. Adequate solid fencing on all sides of the lot, since the lot is visible from Broadway, Palomar Street, Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, and the retail auto center adjacent to the lot. 3. Installation of two fire hydrants on site accompanied by adequate water supply. 4. Landscaping along the Broadway frontage consistent with the City Landscape Manual and approved by the City Landscape Architect. 5. A limitation on the height of storage items. 6. Sign subject to Design Review Committee approval. Continuance of the matter pending completion of the draft plan is also not appropriate since as the lot is in existence now, such action would constitute interim approval. The lot is not protected under any grandfather provisions nor has it any vested rights as it was never legally sanctioned by the County and did not meet County standards for such use. Since the specific plan has not been completed or public hearings yet held, the applicant should be afforded the opportunity of refiling a major use permit application after January l, 1988, if the plan indicates that open storage uses would be appropriate at this location. If the plan indicates that refiling is appropriate, processing the application and evaluating the above-noted conditions could be accomplished prior to the March 31 abatement date provided that the application is filed at least 8 weeks prior to that time. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 4 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 proposed alterations to the existing use are inadequate to shield unsightly views of the use from the vicinity, and will not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Lack of effective visual screening and would be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use does not meet regulations outlined within the City Landscape Manual or, and as such does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of this major use permit would conflict with goal #19 of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan, and therefore, will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. WPC 3901P/2652P "c I R Ut2 c~ t t ~ pALOMAF OCATOR ~._13 8 3 BROADWAY negativ declaration PROJECT NAME: Broadway RV Center PROJECT LOCATION: 1383 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Broadway Equities Ltd. 1431 Stratford Court Del Mar, CA 92121 CASE NO: IS 87-56M DATE: May 22, 1987 A. Project Setting The project site is a rectangular shaped property of 4.5 acres with utility transmission towers bisecting the property from east to west. The existing storage lot contains 373 storage spaces and 35 customer parking spaces surrounded by a 6 foot chain link fence. No screen fencing or landscaping is evident on the property. AC paving is present over the front portion of the lot where customer parking takes place; the vehicle storage area is graveled. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to maintain the RV storage lot with the addition of wood slats in the existing fence; curb, gutter and sidewalk along Broadway adjacent to the property, and limited landscaping along the front of the property adjacent to Broadway. A sign is proposed at the southwest corner of the property. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The zoning in effect for the area is S-g4, a utility transmission zone which allows open storage uses with approval of a major use permit. The General Plan land use diagram designates two land uses over the project area, Thoroughfare Commercial uses for the front 300 feet adjacent to Broadway and High Density Residential land uses for the eastern portion ~? ~e .)r)~)er~y. A ~lew s?ecif'ic plan is currently being drafted for the 'l:)atgO:.l~ry area which is scheduled for completion in December. Continuation of the existing use for a short interim period pending completion of the plan document would represent compliance with the General Plans policy of gradual conversion of the subject area to the long term uses outlined in the new specific plan. D. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Fire Protection The Fire Marshal for the City of Chula Vista requires provision of a maximum of two fire hydrants on site and access to the site via a knox box. These are standard development regulations required by sections 10.301(c) and 10.209 of the Uniform Fire Code. Since these city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section~HU[~ VJ~-['A, ?.~iiti~s are required t2rough standard development regulations, any .~l~er~e environmental impacts resulting from lack of adequate fire protection are mitigated below a level of significance. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact . 1. The existing RV storage yard, with provision of adequate fire protection measures required by ~the Uniform Fire Code, will not degrade the quality of the environment. T!~e ~r,)jec~ Js ex~tiq~ ~qd, as a short interim use, ~ill not create ~ ~:iver~e impact to long term environmental goals. 3.. ~ll potential adverse environmental impacts associated with continuing the RV storage lot are mitigated below significance and are not cumulative in nature. 4. The continuance of the existing RV storage yard, with adequate fire protection measures incorporated, will not cause 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 William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant"s Agent: Hedenkamp and Associates 1331 India Street San Diego, CA 92121 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 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. ENVIRON~4[NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 4057P/O175P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI~YOF environmental review section (]HULA VIST CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT ~ STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE Of CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS )_W~_ICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ~N AND ALL OTHER OFFIC.__..~IAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. BROADWAY EQUITIF_S LIMITED, A California L(mlted Partnership List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. San Diego Gas & Electric 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. I)4~aty Development Company - Marw~gi~ C~ral Partner ~-thur E. ~le - Llmlted Partner 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, Con~issions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) ~i~ ~efi~ed~vidual, firm, C~ ~oi-+ wn+,,,~ ,,,^~.+~^. I~lJa,..S,~m,. fraternal oFganiz~.tion, .corporation, estateF't~us~ ~F°~j?;j~' i~ti~ ~n~r county, city ano county, city, municipalltyi~Jiii~?iiJ~ii!i I v ~ suoa~VlSlOn, or any other group or combination acting as a unft.~ (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessar · ,. i B~{~,~)-~/~k)C.E(~UITI~=~ LIIk~I-T.(~D ~C 0701P ~~ A-)lO ~lnt or t~e na~ of ~ppIlcant Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Revocation of Conditional Use Permit PCC 86-24M; Auto Scrapyard located at 128 Mace Street - Mary Reed A. BACKGROUND On June 23, 1987, Council reviewed a report prepared by staff regarding the status of an application being filed for a new major use permit to continue an existing auto scrapyard at 128 Mace Street. The present major use permit, PCC 86-24M, was conditioned to require that the auto recycling yard cease operation at that location on December 31, 1986; that deadline had been extended twice since then. Council granted an additional period of time in order to allow processing of the major use permit application being filed and directed staff to begin proceedings to revoke major use permit PCC 86-24M for failure to abate the auto scrap yard in the time indicated for doing so. An Initial Study, IS-86-31M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on May 29, 1986. 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 August 5, 1987, voted to recommend that major use Permit PCC 86-24M be revoked for that portion of the property now occupied by a scrapyard, and that the use be abated as outlined in the recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-31M. 2. Adopt a motion to revoke major use permit PCC 86-24M for Chula Vista Auto Recycling located at 125 Mace Street, and further that the scrapyard use at that location shall be abated and permanently vacated no later than 30 days from a final decision by the City Council. C. DISCUSSION Existing site characteristics The existing auto scrapyard is located on a level rectangular parcel at the northwest corner of Mace Street and Britton Avenue. An 8 foot fence surrounds the property, sections of which appear to be in disrepair. There is little or no landscaping evident, aside from a sparse scattering Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 of ornamental bushes. The scrapyard is an open area within the fence used for storing scrap metal, along with a crane, auto crusher, a scale, and a small office. The scrap yard has sole access from Mace Street, which is a paved, unimproved roadway. Britton Avenue lacks both paving and improvements. Similar establishments There are five auto dismantling businesses existing within the vicinity of this operation, all operating under major use permits (see exhibit). However, Chula vista Auto Recycling is the only business which crushes autos and deals with scrap metal. The status of the major use permits for auto dismantling 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 Standard Auto Recycling 150 Center St. P87-40bi Auto June 1989 Dismantling or 90 days after specific plan 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 The present controversy surrounding the continued operation of Chula vista Recycling began in the first weeks after the annexation of Montgomery, when zoning enforcement received complaints that the scrapyard was unsightly and was violating the conditions of their major use permit. It was determined by staff that the major use permit granted by the County for both the property north of Britton Avenue between Center and Mace Streets and the property at 140 Center Street had expired, and the owner had neglected to obtain a new permit. Those properties contained the scrapyard, a dismantling yard, and a towing impound lot. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 The owners filed a new major use permit application which was considered by the City Council mi d-year of 1986. The Council separated the three uses being conducted at 128 Mace Street and 140 Center. The scrapyard operated by Chula Vista Recycling was granted approval until December 31, 1986, at which time the use was to be abated. A chronology of the events leading to this hearing are outlined in Exhibit A of this report. Since this decision, the applicant has been granted three extensions of the final abatement date. The last continuance granted was at the Council hearing of June 23, 1987, to allow processing of an application filed for a new major use permit. However, Council directed staff to initiate proceedings to revoke major use permit PCC 86-24M, for the scrapyard portion of the permit, to end further requests for continuance of the final abatement date. After an extended review of the events that have taken place and of Council's past actions, staff is recommending that the major use permit for Chula vista Recycling be revoked and the use be abated and permanently vacated from the premises no later than 30 days from Council's decision date. There has been clear direction by the Council over the past year that the scrapyard use is not appropriate at this location and should be abated. When the owner originally requested an extension of the final abatement date, the reasons stated for the request were that the operator of the yard needed an additional 90 days to lease property at another location and relocate the business. However, no evidence has been presented to the City that efforts to relocate have been pursued. The current extension granted gives sufficient time to process the new major use permit application and have a decision rendered by the City Council. Once a decision is rendered on the new application there is no reason to extend the present use permit. The owner and operator of the scrapyard have stated that they are unable to find another site for the operation and have filed for a new major use permit to all ow the scrapyard to continue as a permanent use. Given the time already granted for relocation, staff is of the opinion that a 30 day period to vacate the premises is not unreasonable should the Council vote to revoke the major use permit. The scrapyard operators have now had over a year in which to relocate. However, if Council chooses within that time to grant the request for a new major use permit, An abatement date would no longer be necessary. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 4 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 continuing use at this location is unsightly and as such does not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the heal th, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The continuing occurrence of scrap and debris within the right-of-way from operation of the scrapyard and the use of the property, which lacks adequate improvements is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use as it is currently operated lacks on site parking, landscaping or improvements, and therefore does not comply with the conditions specified for such use. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The continued operation of the scrapyard does not conform to the General Plan of the City or to the goals and policies stated in the draft Montgomery Specific Plan. WPC 4141P/2652P EXHIBIT "A" August 12, 1987 PCC-86-24M - 128 MACE STREET - MARY REED Permit Chronology January 9, 1986 - Major use permit P75-88 granted for 128 Mace Street and 140 Center Street expires. February 6, 1986 - Application for new major use permit filed. Owners had been cited for violations to conditions of old major use permit and expiration of new permit. April 2, 1986 - Montgomery Planning Committee votes to recommend approval subject to conditions. April 9, 1986 - Planning Commission votes to grant major use permit subject to revised conditions. April 23, 1986 - Appeal filed by applicants protesting temporary improvements required by condition F. May 20, 1986 Council heard the appeal and took the following actions: {A) Continue the hearing for 2 weeks. (B) Set the expiration date for the major use permit for December 31, 1986. (C) Direct staff to bring back a recommendation on some type of dust control measures. June 3, 1986 Item continued to June 10, 1986 to allow time for additional environmental assessment. June lO, 1986 Council permitted separation of the three uses being conducted at 128 Mace Street and 140 Center Street, and directed staff to return with conditions for each one. June 24, 1986 Council took the following actions: (A) The towing operation at 140 Center Street be allowed to continue as a permitted use as long as no auto dismantling occurs on site. (B) The dismantling operation on the western portion of 128 Mace Street, known as Phil's Auto Recycling was granted for 2 years or 60 days after implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever comes, subject to conditions. (C) The scrapyard on the eastern portion of the property at 128 Mace Street known as Chula Vista Recycling was granted until December 31, 1986; at which time the use would cease operations. No conditions were attached since the time frame for abatement was only 6 months. November 25, 1986 Council receives a request for a time extension of 90 days to relocate Chula Vista Recycling. Council grants the request, setting the abatement date at March 31, 1987. February 25, 1987 Attorney for the applicant submits request for a second 3-month extension and a noticed public hearing to reconsider the use of 128 Mace Street. Council referred the matter back to staff for a report along with a recommendation from the Montgomery Planning Committee. April l, 1987 Montgomery Planning Committee heard the request and staff report and voted to recommend a final abatement date of June 30, 1987. April 22, 1987 Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a time extension not to exceed 2 years or 60 days after implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan, whichever comes first, subject to the conditions outlined in their approval of April, 1986. April 28, 1987 Council considered the owners' request and directed staff to obtain clarification of whether the Committee's action took place to set a final abatement period for the use or whether the Committee was sympathetic to continuance of the use at this location. They requested that a Committee member be present to make their wishes known. Item continued for 2 weeks. May 12, 1987 Council heard testimony from the Chair of the Montgomery Planning Committee regarding the Committee's recommendation regarding a continuance of the use at this location. After hearing from the representative from the Committee and the attorney for the owners, an abatement date was set for June 30, -2- 1987. Council also indicated that if they wished to have the Council reconsider continuance of the scrap yard, they may apply for a new major use permit and go back through the process if they so choose. June 23, 1987 - Staff submitted a status report to Council regarding the progress of the owner and/or applicant in reapplying for a major use permit to continue the scrap yard. Staff requested a continuance of the abatement period to allow the applicant to submit items necessary to complete the permit application. Council granted a continuance to August 25, 1987, but directed staff to initiate proceedings to revoke major use permit PCC-86-24M for failure to abate the scrapyard. August 5, 1987 - The Montgomery Planning Committee heard the following action items: 1. Hearing to revoke major use permit PCC-87-24M for failure to abate the scrapyard use within the time specified. 2. Consideration of major use permit application PCC 87-44M filed by the owner and operators of the scrapyard to continue the scrapyard use at 128 Mace Street. The Committee voted to recommend that the existing major use permit be revoked, the major use permit application be denied, and the use to be abated and permanently vacated 30 days after the date of the Council decision. WPC 4143P -3- I ~ I I I I I I ~ I I I MAIN STRffET Dbrnanfling and Storage BRITTON ~VF'. PT g-~, 1 3 M-58 , Pcc-s?-4OM. II ' I { P8a.o5,5 I Mary Reed "LOCATOR , PCC-63(5- 2.Zl-M Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-44M; request to continue an existing auto scrapyard located at 128 Mace Street within an M-58 heavy industrial zone - Sam Block A. BACKGROUND The applicant has filed an application for a major use permit to continue an existing scrapyard known as Chula Vista Recycling located at 128 Mace Street. The major use permit now in effect over the property calls for permanent abatement of the use, the final abatement date has been extended until August 30 to allow for processing of the permit application. The zoning in effect for the property is M-58, a heavy industrial zone. An Initial Study, IS-86-31M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on May 29, 1986. 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 August 5, 1987, voted to recommend denial of the major use permit request and permanent abatement of the use as outlined in the recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-31M. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny PCC-87-44M, the request to continue the existing scrapyard located at 128 Mace Street, and further that the use shall be abated and permanently vacated no later than 30 days from the date of the final decision rendered by the City Council. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North M-52 Auto parts sales, auto repair South M-58 Industrial park East M-58 Auto dismantling West M-52 Industrial buildings Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 Existing site characteristics The existing auto scrapyard is located on a level rectangular parcel at the northwest corner of Mace Street and Britton Avenue. An 8 foot fence surrounds the property, sections of which appear to be in disrepair. There is little or no landscaping evident, aside from a sparse scattering of ornamental bushes. The scrapyard is an open area within the fence used for storing scrap metal, along with a crane, auto crusher, a scale, and a small office. The scrap yard has sole access from Mace Street, which is a paved, unimproved roadway. Britton Avenue lacks both paving and improvements. Proposed use The applicant proposes to continue the existing auto scrap yard. Similar establishments There are five auto dismantling operations located within the vicinity of Chula Vista recycling which have valid major use permits, lhe type and status of those permits are included in the "similar establishments" section of the previous report. D. ANALYSIS The issue of whether or not to continue the auto scrapyard known as Chula Vista Auto Recycling has been before the Planning Commission and Council for over a year, as the previous report indicates (see Permit Chronology, Exhibit A of previous report). The scrapyard had originally been approved by the County as part of a major use permit which covered a larger area for auto dismantling. The conditions of approval for the County permit P75-88 required among other things that landscaping be installed and maintained on site, that parking areas and driveways be well maintained, and that no materials be stacked higher than the fence. It appears that these conditions were generally not adhered to. Conditions of approval for P75-88 are included in Exhibit A of this report. During processing of the major use permit submitted in February of 1986, several conditions were recommended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission relating to bringing the project area up to current standards for street improvements, and keeping the site from becoming an eyesore to surrounding property owners {see conditions in Exhibit A). Complaints had been received from some owners that scrap was being stored in piles towering over the existing fence, that the fence was periodically in disrepair, that trucks hauling scrap were blocking Mace Street, and that scrap, debris and junked autos were scattered over the street. Periodic site visits have indicated that conditions vary but have not improved substantially over the long term. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 The new major use permit now being processed is identical to the application originally submitted, and does not reflect compliance with the conditions suggested and imposed over the past year, or any of the complaints rendered by neighbors of the project site. The applicant has stated that they are willing to upgrade the property, but have not offered specific plans to address these issues. In view of the fact that Council has indicated on several occasions over the past year that the use is not appropriate at this location, staff is recommending denial of the request and vacation of the property within 30 days of the final decision. The project site is within an M-58 industrial zone which permits heavy industrial uses. However, auto dismantling and scrap operations are discretionary uses in any zone and are subject to approval of a major use permit. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that uses of this type are designed and conducted so that the operations are not unsightly and land use conflicts do not occur with surrounding areas. The proposal to continue the use in the application submitted does not meet this stated intent. 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 proposed use at 128 Mace Street has resulted in unsightly and hazardous conditions included piling of scrap so that it is visible to surrounding properties, scattering of metal debris within the roadway, and trucks blocking Mace Street while conducting business. Therefore, the proposed well being of the neighborhood and/or the community has been negatively affected. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The existing use over the past l-l/2 years has resulted in blocked traffic as well as debris being left on over the roadway, which is potentially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use does not comply with the regulations or standards relating to on-site parking, decorative fencing, or landscaping and conditions specified in the code for such use. Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 4 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of a major use pemit for the existing use does not conform to the existing General Plan or the draft Montgomery Specific Plan. WPC 4146P/2652P EXHIBIT A FO~q OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT (N~. P?S-SS) PER24ITTEE: Phillip D. Reed IS GP~NTED, a special use permit, for a period of ten years, pursuant to Sections 440.2 and 440.7 of The Zoning Ordinance, for expansion of an existing auto dismantling yard. The existing facility contains all 800-square- foot sales structure on about 4.9 acres. This expansion is for addition of about 2.16 acres of adjacent area to contain a S,000-square-foot parts sales and storage building, an off-street parking area with 21 spaces, a 72-square- foot free-standing sign, an 2,37S-square-foot canopy-covered pre-dismantling area, a 52S-square-foot watchman's shelter, an eight-foot-high solid fence, and additional auto dismantling and storage areas. The following conditions are imposed with the granting of this special use permit: A. Prior to any use 6r occupancy of the expanded premises and prior to obtaining any building permit pursuant to this special use permit, the applicant shall: 1. Cause execution of an easement for Public Highway to S1 feet from the official centerline of b~ain Street. 2. Enter into a secured agreement to improve ~lain Street to full Major Road standards. This agreement requires posting security in the form of a cash deposit, corporate surety bond, or letter of credit valued at or more than the estimated improvement cost. tt also requires the improvements be completed by 24 months from the date approving the rezone or prier to use or occupancy of the facility, wi~ichever is earlier. 3. Sign an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the County, without cost, sufficient additional right-of-way to provide 36 feet from the centerline of Center Street. 4.Sign a covenant agreeing not to oppose the formation of any local road improvemeut district. 5. Submit for tile approval of the Director of Land Use and Environmental Regulation (LIJEil) a revised plot plan, showing relocation of the proposed sa]es anti storage structure, the canopy covered pre-dislaantling area, tho proposed parking area and tile eight-foot-high fence witere necessary to provide ten-foot-wide planting strips adjacent to said parking area's frontage along Hain and Center Streets. 6. Submit for tile approval of the Director of LUER detailed and complete landscaping plans for the development. Said landscaping plans shall include: a. A complete planting plan including the names, sizes and locations of all plant materials, including trees, shrubs, and gronnd cover. b. A complete watering system including all water lines, valves, sprinkler heads or watering devices, anti-syphon and backflow prevention devices, and the sizes of all elements. B. Prior to any occupancy or use of the expanded premises pursuant to this special use permit, the applicant shall: I~nprove all parking areas and driveways shown on the approved plot plan with a minimum of one and one-half inches (1½") of road oil mix or surfacing of a more durable type. 2. Install all landscaping as shown on tile approved landscaping plan, including the watering system therefor. 5. Install all fencing and view obscuring screens as shown on the approved plot plan. 4. Obtain from the Department of LUER certification that specified conditions of the permit have been met. The Division of Building Inspection shall not perfor]!l final inspection or authorize permaaent clearance of utilities until tile Director of LUER ]las certified that all conditions of subject permit ]lave been met to the satisfaction of t!,e Department of LUER. Upon certification by the Director of LUER for occupancy or establishment or use allowed by this special use permit, the following conditions shall apply: C. All light fixtures shall be de$ig:led and adjusted to reflect light downward, away from any road or street, and away from any adjoining premises, and shall otherwise conform to Section 534 of The Zoning Ordinance. D. No loudspeaker or sound amplification system shall be used to produce sounds audible beyond the boundaries of the premises. The parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained. F. All landscaping shall be adequately watered and well maintained at all times. G. Ali auto dismantling operations including the storage of all motor vehicles, jnnk, auto parts and other materials shall bo conducted within an enclosed buildin}~ or within tile area enclosed by the above mentioned eitht-foot high solid feace or wall; and said fence or wall shall be maintained in a neat manner and shall not be used for advertising purposes. 11. No motor vehicles, junk, auto parts, or other materials shall be stacked higher than said fence and nothing shall be placed closer than two feet to any fence. I. There shall be no burning of junk, motor vehices, or other materials on the premises. J. Ail fuel shall be drained from the tanks of stored vehicles. K. Fire lanes, 1S feet minimum in width, shall be provided through all storage L. Ail material shall be placed and maintained so that it will not encourage spontaneous or accidental combustion. M. Special Use Permits P73-222 and P72-411 shall be and are hereby superseded and replaced in their entirety and shall be of no further force and effect upon the commencement of construction pursuant to this permit. N. This special use permit expires on .(or such longer period as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego prior to said expiration date) unless construction or use in reliance on this special use permi~ has commenced prior to said expiration date. Pursuant to Section 710 of Tile Zoning Ordinance, tile following findings in support of tile granting of the special use permit are made: {1) Tk, e granting of such special ~se permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Tile facts supporting Finding (1) are as follows: The flat tepography of'the additional property will lend itself to the proposed development scheme without the necessity of substantial earth moving and the dust and noise disturbances usually associated therewith. (b) Four other dismantling operations have been authorized on adjacent and nearby properties, tile one nearby single-family resideuce is adequately buffered from subject facility, and again, t~ere have been no recorded complaints thereon. [c) ;Vhile the applicant has requested a ].S-year permit, a time limit of ten years is reco~u~ended to allow a reevaluation of this use with consideration for any future development in the area which nmy alter the present compatible sitnation. (d) Subject to recommended conditions for the granting of this permit, which include fire pro~ection measures, screening of all dismantling operations, and installation of landscaping, no such detriment or injury would exist. (2) The granting of such special use permit will not adversely affect any master or precise plan adopted pursuant to law. The facts supporting Finding (2) are as follows: (a) Expansion of this existing auto dismantling facility would not alter its present compatibility with the area's "Industrial'? desig.nation on the County General Plan. (b) This proposal is also consistent with the General Plan's adopted Circulation Element which designates bIain Street as a ~Iajor Roar[. The real property for which this special use permit is granted is located in the County of San Diego, State of California, and is more particularly described as fellows: Ail of Block 1 and the Southerly ene-half of Block 2, Eastern ' Addition to Otay as per 51ap No. S23, filed in the Office of the Recorder, County of San Diego, State of Califoz~ia, on April 6, 1888. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PCC-86-24M PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 9, 1986 a. Requested scrap operations use shall be approved for 24 months or until 60 days after adoption of the Montgomery Specific plan, whichever occurs sooner. b. Perimeter fence at 8 foot height shall be repaired and maintained in good condition within 30 days after approval of the major use permit, and shall be maintained in good condition thereafter. c. No scrap operations or auto dismantling shall be conducted outside the perimeter fence. All storage, scrap, or other articles shall be kept behind and below the fence line so that it may not be seen from outside the property. Trucks shall be tied down and cleaned of debris onsite within the perimeter fence, and shall not conduct such activities within the right of way. d. Operation of all equipment associated with the use must comply with the performance standards outlined in Section 6300 of the zoning ordinance, for operations within an M-58 zone. Should noise levels exceed the performance standards, all necessary measures shall be taken to achieve compliance with the standards. e. Paving and street improvements to Center Street, Britton Avenue and Mace Street, for that half of the right-of-way adjacent to and within the boundaries of the project sites, shall be required; the extent of street improvements to be determined by the Engineering Department of the City of Chula Vista. f. Interim dust control measures shall be instituted along the Britton Avenue right-of-way for that period of time prior to installation of paving and road improvements. Specific design of interim measures shall be determined by the Engineering Department with due consideration being given to accommodate the size and weight of vehicles being used by the applicant. Plans and schedules for the installation of temporary improvements are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. g. That an agreement be entered into between the applicant and the Director of Planning to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's office. Said agreement would be for the purpose of reasonable maintenance of the public street adjoining the project site for the removal and disposal of abandoned cars and scrap materials. Said agreement shall require the maintenance occur on a weekly basis. The agreement shall be entered into within 30 days. WPC 4147P PROJECT NAHE: Major Use Permit to continue two scrap and automobile dismantling yards PROJECT LOCATIOn: 140 Center Street and 128 Mace Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Mary Reed CASE NO: IS-86-31M DATE: May 29, 1986 A. Project Settln~ The project sites consist of two parcels located at 140 Center Street and 128 Mace Street, within the Montgomery community of Chula Vista. Both sites contain auto dismantling and scrap yards which have been conducted since 1973, under a special use permit, and late~ under a major use permit which expired on January 9, 1986. Both sites received ~%Negative Declaration when Major Use Permit P75-88 was granted on JanUary-%9, 1976. The first site, located at 140 Center Street is the site of an existing auto dismantling yard, auto storage, and towing service. The perimeter of the property is surrounded by an 8-foot high aluminum fence which has been painted a light beige color. A narrow landscape strip is in existence between the fence and the street. Center Street is paved, but is not improved to City standards, the street is not of sufficient width and there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Center Street ends as a public r~ght-of-way at the entrance of the yard, but continues as a private easement along the eastern boundary of the site. The lot is level and is located in proximity to, but not within the floodplain for the Otay River. The second site, located on 128 Mace Street contains both automobile dismantling and scrap operations. An 8-foot high solid wood fence surrounds the property, sections of which appear to be in disrepair. there is l~ttle or no landscap%ng ~vld~n[, aside_ fPora--a sparse SCattering of ornamental bushes. The site is a flat, level lot. Recently, complaints have been filed with staff that the scrap operations yard at 128 Mace street contained large unsightly piles of scrap that could be seen protruding higher than the fence line, that abandoned autos littered the Britton Avenue right-of-way, and that auto dismantling was occurring on adjacent lots. The overall effect was aesthetically unpleasing to surrounding areas. . The second site is adjacent to Mace Street on the eastern boundary, t~ Britton Avenue on the south, and to Center Street on the west. Mace and Center Street are paved uhimproved roadways. Britton Avenue lacks both pavinE and improvements. Both project sites are located north of Otay River outside of the floodplain. Commercial and industrial businesses are located to the north, along Main Street, to the east are industrial yar~s and isolated city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section _CHULA VISTAI residences, to the south are automobile dismantling operations, an industrial park and one residence, with additional auto dismantling yards located to the west. B. Project Description The project consists of continuation of the existing automobile dismantling and scrap operations uses previously granted by Major Use Permit P-75-88 by the County of San Diego. C. Compatibility with ZoninK and Plans The current General Plan Land Use diagram places a limit'ed industrial research designation over the entire area north of Main Street within the Montgomery annexation area. The project is not~a limited industrial use, but is more appropriately classified as a general industrial activity. In addition, a work program and base research has begun on a specific plan for the Montgomery annexation area, which is tentatively scheduled for completion in April 1987. There is no indication at this time as to the type of long term land use designations to be recon~ended 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 general plan's call for the gradual and methodical conversion of the subject area to limited research industrial activities. The current zoning for both sites is an M-58 heavy industrial use type, which permits scrap operations with approval of a Major Use Permit. D.. Identification of Env~Ponmental Effects~ ----- -- __ 1. Noise. The project site located at 128 Mace Street contains an automobile crushing machine located approximately 40 feet from the northern property line. Current zoning ordinance performance standards for Montgomery specify that operation of this machine for crushing autos between the hours of 8:00 mom. and 5:00 p.m. on workdays may not exceed 80 decibels, as measured from the property line in an M-58 industrial zone. 2. Land Use. As was previously mentioned, the project is a general industrial activity located in an area designated for limited research industrial uses. Since, however, this request is for continuation of an existing use, a period not to exceed one year, pending completion of the Montgomery Specific, the project would be deeme~ in compliance with the intent of the General Plan. 3. Aesthetics. Complaints have been filed with staff that the on-going scrap operation at 128 Mace Street is unsightly and results in degradation of communi5y aesthetics in surrounding areas. Although both sites lack sufficient landscaping and fencing to adequately buffer the effects of scrap operations from surrounding areas, continuation of the use is for a short duration and is scheduled to cease operations by December 31, 1986. 4. Maintenance of Public Facilities As was previously noted, both sites are situated adjacent to Center Street, Britton Avenue, and Mace Street, which are not improved to City standards. However, since to use wil~ cease as of December 31, 1986, public improvements for the site will be required by the Engineering Department when more appropriate long term land uses on the property are initiated. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The following are measures incorporated into the project which reduce the environmental effects of the project to a level of insignificance: 1. Noise Noise levels associated with the existing use will be eliminated with the termination of the use, scheduled for December 31, 1986. 2. Land Use The continuation--of the use for 'a period ~ot to--exceed one year, pending completion of the Montgomery Specific Plan represents compliance with General Plan policies. 3. Public Facilities Improvements to center Street, Britton Avenue, and Mace Street as per City Engineering Standards will be instituted with the initiation of more appropriate long te~ land uses. 4. Aesthetics Removal of the use by December 31, 1986, will serve to ameliorate the outstanding unsightly conditions created by the existing auto dismantling and scrap facilities. F. Findings of InsiKnlflcant Impact 1. The proposed auto dismantling and scrap operations ~ards utilizing mitigation measures incorporated into the project, will not result in the degradation of the environment. 2. The projects environmental effects are short term and reversible, due to the termination of the use by December 31, 1986. 3. The incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed project reduces any cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. The project, which is scheduled for termination by December 31, 1986, will not result in impacts that will adversely affect human beings, due t6 the short duration of the use. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizationm City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Steve Griffin, Associate Planner - Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department Carol Gore, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Phillips Reynolds Engineering, Attn: Bill Lund 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan County of San ~ieEo Zoning Ordinance 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. ENVIR~?IENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 2849P E~ 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section CHtJ[J~ EH 6 (Rev. 12/82) 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. ~g~ No~- Prnl~r Gompany List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Mary Reed 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. Sam Block 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 X If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--6E-f~T 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.).~ ~ignature of~appl~ant/date WPC 0701P Sam Block by George D. Lindber A-110 Print or type name of applicant Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-4M; Density Bonus Request for a proposed 8 unit apartment complex at 251 Oxford - Hector Zuniga A. BACKGROUND Mr. Hector Zuni§a, developer of a proposed apartment project at 251 Oxford, has requested a density bonus of one unit under State Government Code Section 65915. Under this law, a local entity is required to either approve a density bonus or grant the developer other incentives of equivalent economic value. The Design Review Committee approved the project design with the additional density bonus unit at their March 19, 1987 meeting, subject to City Council approval of the density bonus. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of August 5, 1987, reviewed the request for one density bonus unit as an information item. An Initial Study, IS-87-9M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on September 4, 1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-87-9M. 2. Adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the request for one density bonus unit for the project at 251 Oxford Street in compliance with State Government Code Section 65915. C. ANALYSIS Mr. Hector Zuniga is proposing to develop a 8 unit apartment project for families at 251 Oxford Street. Current zonin§ allows 7 units, and the developer requests an additional unit under the State's Density Bonus Program. This additional unit will consist of a single-family house that is currently on the site. He intends to move the house to the rear of the lot and construct seven apartments toward the front of the lot. In 1985, the City enacted Ordinance 12135 which provides a procedure for the City to respond to requests by developers for density bonuses under the provisions of California Government Code Section 65915. Under our policy, a developer must provide 2~ of the total project units prior to Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 the granting of a density bonus as affordable to low income households (households at or below 80% of the area median income), and 5% of the pre-density project units as affordable to moderate income households (households at or below 120% and above 80% of the area median income). Rents on affordable units are restricted for 25 years. Affordability is defined as rent levels not exceeding 25% of the monthly income of households in those low and moderate income categories. As an alternative to granting the density bonus, the City has the option to grant to the developer other incentives of equivalent economic value. A copy of the City's ordinance is attached for your review. If the City Council grants the requested density bonus, the developer has agreed to rent one, 2-bedroom apartment for no more than $523 a month to a low-income household, and one 2-bedroom apartment for a maximum of $785 a month to a moderate-income household. While the developer has not yet determined what his rent schedule will be, our ordinance sets maximum rents that can be charged for restricted unit. In reality, the market rate rents will most likely be below the maximum of $785 set for the moderate-income unit. The moderate income restriction would be beneficial if market conditions change in the future and rents escalate. Currently a family of four would have to have an income of $25,100 a year or less to be eligible to rent the unit reserved for a low-income household and $37,700 a year or less to qualify for the moderate-income restricted unit. Rents could increase as the median income figures for the County increase. The units would be restricted for a period of 25 years. The other units can be rented at market rates. Maximum restricted rents are calculated using the affordable rent formula described in our family density bonus policy. According to this formula, monthly rental rates cannot exceed 25% of the gross monthly income of a four-person household who's income falls at 80% and at 120% of the County median income. Land Use Considerations The Planning Department has reviewed the project, and the Design Review Committee has approved the 8 unit apartment project conditioned upon Council approval of the 1 unit density bonus. The project will consist of 7 apartment units and 1 single family house that is currently on the site. The house would be remodeled to match the architectural style of the apartments to be constructed. The zoning in effect over the site is an RV-15 with a "K" building type, which allows up to 14.5 dwellings per net acre. The addition of one unit over the 7 units permitted under this zoning represents a density bonus increase of 14%. No further Planning review is required in terms of land use considerations. Conclusion The issue that will come before the City Council is to decide whether or not to grant a density bonus on one unit to the developer of 251 Oxford, or to agree to offer equivalent financial incentives. According to State law, a local jurisdiction does not have the option to deny a density bonus Planning Co~nission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 request without offering equivalent financial incentives. All land use issues have been previously approved, and do not require further action. If a density bonus is approved, the City will gain two affordable housing units, one for a low-income household and one for a moderate-income household, with a 25-year restriction. If Council votes to offer equivalent financial incentives, it is recommended that they refer to the issue to staff to consider various alternatives which would be brought back to the Council for their approval. WPC 4149P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Oxford Street Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: 251 Oxford Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Hector Zuniga CASE NO: IS-87-9M DATE: September 4, 1986 A. Project Setting The project site consists of .5 acres situated within the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista. Presently, there is one single family dwelling existing, located on the northern portion of the property. The project site slopes approximately 2% down the southern portion of the property. Adjacent land uses consist of one and two family residential uses to the north across Oxford Street, single family residential dwellings to the east, multiple family residential apartments south of the project site (with access onto Kennedy Street,) and single family dwellings to the west. B. Project Description The project consists of the removal of on-site structures and the construction of a two-story seven unit apartment building with 12 parking spaces in the rear of the property, two of which are handicapped spaces. The seven units will be two bedroom units. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The General Plan designation for the property is "High Density Residential (13-26 dwelling units per gros.s acre.) The gross density of the proposed project totals 14 dwelling units per acre, in conformance with the general plan. The current zoning for the property is an R-V-15 residential zone with a K building type; which allows multiple units of a density not exceeding 14.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, therefore, is in compliance witll the R-V-15 zone. D. Identification of Environmental Effects School s The proposed project is within the Lauderbach Elementary School and Castle Park Junior and Senior High School districts. Castle Park Junior High School and Castle Park Senior High School both have student attendance levels in excess of their current capacities. city of chula vista planning department OIlY OF " environmental review section. CHULA -2- The project is expected to generate approximately 6 students, 3 of which would be expected to attend the impacted schools. However, payment of required school fees during the development process will serve to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts below a level of significance. Fire Protection The City's Fire Marshal has indicated that one public fire hydrant is required for this project, along with installation of smoke detectors located in each unit, and a fire flow of 2,000 gpm at 20 psi. These are standard development regulations. Public Improvements The Engineering Department has indicated that street widening and improvements will be required at the building permit stage in accordance with City standards. Improvements include but are not limited to installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lights. The improvement requirement is a standard development regulation E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Payment of school fees will serve to mitigate any potential adverse environmental impacts to the local school system from students generated from construction of 7 two-bedroom units. 2. Compliance with fire department regulations will mitigate any potential adverse environmental effects as a result of a deterioration of fire protection services. 3. Construction of street improvements and widening of the existing street mitigates any potential adverse environmental effects affecting the maintenance of public roads. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed seven-unit apartment building is in conformance with zoning and general plan regulations, is compatible with the surrounding residential environmental and, therefore, will not result in the degradation of the environment. 2. The project is designed in keeping with the residential character of the area and, therefore, will not result in long-term adverse environmental impacts. 3. The project will not result in significant impacts to schools, public roads or fire protection, that would adversely affect human beings. -3- 4. The seven-unit apartment project will not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Frank Herrera, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan Chapter 19.70, Title 19, Zoning, Chula Vista Municipal Code 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. ENVIRO~N~IENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 3117P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHI. JLA VISTA EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT 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 organiz~t)i~n~qor as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. YLY/~ /- 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Bo~t~,s, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? YesNo~ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPersonis defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association. ! soc-'6~'T~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estg~l~e,. ~rus~, receive~, syndicate~ this and any other county, c~ty and county, city,/man~c~pal~ty, dtstr~ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combinati~n>ctigg )s~nit.'' (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.). ._ __ ._..~I~~ ~~7 JULY / 29/1987 Project: ....... 251 Oxford St. apartments. Location: ...... Same - Chula Vista, California. Owner/ applicant ...... Hector Zuniga . Regarding: ............ Density bonus request. Att ention: Planning Commission. To whom it may concern. The site is located between 3rd. Avenue and Twin Oaks street on the south side of Oxford st. and almost right in front of Del Mar street. The project site consists of 1/2 of acre and it is situated - within the Montgomery community of Chula Vista. Presently there is one single family dwelling unit that will be removed and remodel to- the back portion of the lot. The project consists of a two story wood frame structure ( 7- units)that will be set in the front side of the lot, rasing Oxford street and the removal on-site of the existing house as mentioned above. The project have been allready submitted to Design Review Co= mmittee, to revise their needs, analyze the design concept and to a- nalyze the effect of adding the one requesting additinal unit, and it- have been approved with no major recomendations. The reason for the density bonus request is, that after reviewing the project with different lending institutions, I found out that it was re- quired to ad one more unit other than what it is permissible by the exis- ting zoning in the area, to accomplish a economical leasable project. 1 as the owner of the property is requesting from planning commi- ssion your consideration and authorization for a density bonus for the hereto mentioned project. If you have any questions and will like to discuss this matter in more detail, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenien- ce. ~~Owner and I~veloper. CITY OF CHULA VISTA HOUSING DENSITY BONUS POLICY Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 12135 on August 13,1985 OBJECTIVE To provide a procedure for City response to formal requests by housing developers for density bonuses under the provisions of California Government Code Section 65915, which provides for increases in densities of residential rental units in exchange for the provision of affordable housing units; to establish the degree of provision of those affordable housing units required by the City in granting density bonuses under California Government Code Section 65915. CONDITIONS In order to obtain approval of a density bonus or an incentive of equivalent financial value, the housing developer must commit to the following provision of affordable housing: 1. A minimum of 20% of the pre-density bonus unit count to be occupied and affordable to low-income households and 5% of the pre-density bonus unit count to be occupied and affordable to moderate income households. Low-income is defined as at or below 80% of the HUD-publishe~ SMSA median income adjusted for family size and moderate income as between 81 and 120% of the HUD-published SMSA median income adjusted for family size. Studios shall be assumed to be occupied by one-person households, one bedrooms by two-person households, and two bedrooms by four-person households.- Affordability shall be defined as being a monthly rental rate not in excess of 25% of the monthly income of the appropriate lower income or moderate income family size. 2. Affordable units to be committed to low-income household occupancy for a minimum of 25 years. PROCEDURE 1. An applicant wishing a density b~us shall submit jointly to the Planning Director and the Community Development Director the following preliminary information: a. A letter formally requesting the density bonus and describing the project, project location, total units allowable under existing zoning, total density requested, and number, size, and location of affordable units proposed. b. Project financial information, including a pro forma and projected rent schedule. c. Land use and design details and drawings which in the judgment of the Planning Director are sufficient in scope and detail to allow preliminary evaluation of the proposed project's configuration and impact. Nousing Density Bonus Policy August 6, 1985 Page Two 2. The housing developer's request shall be taken to the Planning Commission and the City Council for preliminary recommendation and approval or disapproval, subject to all necessary and appropriate City development approvals based on the standards applicable to the post-density unit count. 3. The City shall within 90 days of the housing developer's preliminary request notify the applicant of: a. Its intention to allow the requested density bonus, subject to all necessary and appropriate City development approvals. b. Its intention to c~nsider incentives of equivalent financial value in lieu of the density bonus, in which case the City shall inform the housing developer of the fee for evaluation of those incentives of equivalent financial value. c. Its conclusion that the request has been found to be invalid for articulable reasons. 4. In response to 2a, the housing developer may follow the appropriate City procedures for housing development approval of the proposed project including the density bonus. 5. In response to 2b, the developer may submit to the Community Development Director a letter agreeing to the evaluation of incentives of equivalent financial value and, in that case, shall submit the appropriate fee payment. The City shall then submit the project information to the City Housing Consultant for evaluation and recommendation to the City Council on appropriate incentives of equivalent financial value. The City Council shall make its determination and offer the selected incentives to the developer in exchange for the appropriate affordable housing provisions. 6. In response to 2a or 2b, the housing developer shall enter into a Housing Cooperation Agreement with the City Council which identifies and commits the provision of affordable housing and which is recorded against the project property. WPC 1689H Title 7 Div. 1 DENSITY BONUSES & INCENTIVES § 65915 :ent and the iff or plain- Chapter 4.3 ~ding attor- the follow- DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES ?quirements 65915. Agreement with developer; density bonus or other incentives; preliminary development proposal; number of bonuses per- ztion 65915. mitted. he primary 65916. Direct financial contribution to housing developments through 'omc nature participation in costs; term of availability. 65917. Density bonuses and other incentives; legislative intent. 65918. Charter cities; application of chapter. under this ~ngs, and. if Chapter 4.3 was added by Stats. 1979, c. 1207, p. 4748, § zl or other- 10, elf. Oct. 2, 1979. the lawsuit. adc by the § 65915. Agreement with developer; density bonus or other such denial incentives; preliminary development proposal; hum- :ceding was ber of bonuses permitted by any de- When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least 25 per- cent of the total units of a housing development for persons and fami- ion (a), the lies of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the of suit, in- Health and Safety Code, or 10 percent of the total units of a housing he court re- development for lowerincome households, as defined in Section ct to para- 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, a city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other in- centives of equivalent financial value. A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal for the development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of a '!arming § 314. written proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the man- ner in which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this sec- tion, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a densi- ty increase of at least 25 percent over the nthe vr~l~_maximum allow- ab~fl~Fe resid~-tial~ density._ under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number of housing units which is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the total. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. 121 § 65915 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 Dix If a developer agrees to construct both 25 percent of the total units for persons and families of low or moderate income and 10 per- cent of the total units for lowerincome households, the developer is entitled to only one density bonus under this section although the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant mo~e opt than one density bonus. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 1207, p. 4748, § 10, eff. Oct. 2, 1979. Amended by str~ Stats.1982, c. 1263, § 2, elf. Sept. 22, 1982.) av~ ~ ap~ Historical Note ~ fy Legislative findings and declarations, and and any local ordinance adopted pursuant ~ tier purpose of Stats.1979, c. 1207. p. 4738, § thereto. 1, see Historical Note under § 65050. "(b) Construction of public improve- (Ad The 19S2 amendment rewrote the sec- raents appurtenant to the proposed hous- tion. wbieb formerly read: lng development, wblcb may include, but "~Vhen a developer of housing agrees to units of a housing development for per- "(c) Utilization of federal or state grant Tb come, as defined by Section 50093 of tile land on which the bouslng development ~Iealtb and Safety Code, a city, county, or will be constructed at a reduced cost. "(d) Exemption of the development § city and county shall enter into an agree- from any provision of local ordinances density bonus or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the proj- the cost of the housing units to be devel- the eot. oped. "For tile purposes of this chapter, 'den- "Nothing in this section shall preclude a city least 25 percent over rbe otherwise allow- lng any additional actions which will aid able residential density under tile applica- housing developers to construct housing Pr01 shall not be included when determining the for persons and families of low or moder- Stat otberwlse allowable density. Tim density consisting of five or more dwelling units, means by w c a city, county, or city and Other bonus incentives which a city, coun- co mt - will comply with tbis chapter shall vide under this section include the follow- ty, or city and county: provided, that no ty bo lng: developer shall be required to enter into "(a) Exemption of the development an unacceptable agreement as a prerequi- from the requirements of Section 66477 site to approval of a housing develop- Administrative Code References (Ad( Program eligibility and affordab ty for lower income households, see 25 Cal. Adm. Code 6910. Notes of Decisions When a developer of housing agrees to the incentives specifically listed in this sons and families of low or moderate in- the developer and in furtherance of tile come, local government need not grant a parpose of the section. 63 eps.Arty.Gen. density beaus or provide at least two of 47S, G-9-~O. 122 p ~ e 7 ]' Div. 1 DENSITY BONUSES & INCENTIVES § 65918 )tal [[ § 65916. Direct financial contribution to housing developments ~er- through participation in costs; term of availability r is the Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing devel- ore opment pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost of in- frastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of con- struction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure continued ! by availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915 shall speci- fy the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this sec- ~mnt tion. ore- (Added by Stats.1979, c. 1207, p. 4748, § 10, eff. Oct. 2, 1979.) but Notes of Decisions :rant The granting of a density bonus or an contribution" for purposes of this section. the exemption from a local ordinance provi- 64 Ops.Atty. Gen. 370, 4-29~1. ~nent § 65917. Density bonuses and other incentives; legislative intent .,, i. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that .wel- the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or de a city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly rak- to the economic feasibility of low- and moderate-income housing in I aid lsing proposed housing developments. :'c of (Added by Stats.1979, c. 1207, p. 4748, § 10, eff. Oct. 2, 1979. Amended by ~der- Stats.1982, c. 1263, § 3, eff. Sept. 22, 1982.) ' and Historical Note oun- The 1982 amendment substituted "densi- ment"; and inserted "shall" prior to clop- § 659 1 8. Charter cities; application of chapter The provisions of this chapter shall apply to charter cities. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 1207, p. 4748, § 10, eff. Oct. 2, 1979.) 123 GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE § 65915 condition of approval of the proposed development, then in. the event a protest is lodged pursuant to '~he housing project if commercial, office, this section, that approval shall be suspended pending withdrawal of the protest, the expiration of the ousing development and if the commercial, ]imitation period of subdivision (d) without the filing of an action, or resolution of any action filed. · This subdivision confers no new or independent authority for imposing fees, * * ' dedications~ h the housing project and the existing or ~smg project will be located. ~ reservations, or other exactions not presently governed by other law. by the developer or the city, county, or city (d) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be fi]ed at the time of approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the establishment of the imposition of the fees, ' ' ' dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a residential housing ~; direct financial incentives for the housing development. Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (a) may file an action to attack, ~. by the city., county, or city and county or review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, * * * dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a residential housing development by a * * * local agency within 180 days after :s an alternative to, and not in addition to, the date of the establishment of the imposition. Thereafter, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, all persons are barred from any action or proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition. Any such proceeding shall take precedence over all matter~ of ntives which could result in the housing the calendar of the court except criminal, probate, eminent domain, forcible entry, and unlawful ~ubdivision (a), a city, county, or city and detainer proceedings. ~ce to take any of the actions identified in ~ither of the folIowing written findings: (e) If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to subdivision (d), the court shall direct the * ' * local agency to refund the unlawful portion of the ,'al assistance because the reserved units payment, with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum, or return the un]a~rful portion of the ~.eh.°useholds, as defined by Section 50105 exaction imposed. ubstantia] adverse impact upon the public (f) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or :stantial evidence in the public record, when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. aining five or more units, including, but (g) The establishment of the imposition of fees, * * * dedications, reservations, or other exactions rate, or local construction or mortgage occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. ~es. ~nanced under es Code ! the units for low~/~com~ (h) "Local agency/' as used in this section~ means a city, county, city and county, or any other local period of 10 years, or a longer period of public entity. ~ssmtance program, mortgage insurance · (Added by Stats.1984, c. 653, p. , § 1. Amended by Stats.1985, c. 186, p. --, § 2; Stats.1955, c. 671, p. --, § 1; Stats.1986, c. 1102, § 39.5, elf. Sept. 24, 1986.) ~ts.1986, c. 1190, § 1.) CHAPTER 4.3. DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES ents; retaliation prohibited; time for Section osition of any fees, * * * dedications, 65915.5. Conversion of apartments to condominium project; eligibility; procedure. ~ousing development by a * * * local Law Review Commentaries Building and Bargaining in California. William Fulton tisfactory evidence of arrangements to (1984) 4 Cai. Lawyer No. 12, p. 36. ~he requirements of the imposition. ity which notice shall contain all of the § 65915. Agreement with developer; density bonus or other incentives; preliminary develop- ment proposal; number of bonuses permitted '~hat any conditions which have been (a) When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least (1) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 elements of the dispute and the legal of the Health and Safety Code, or 2(~ 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 the basis for a * ' * local a~encv to percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in nsc, or other form of permissio~i or Section 51.2 of the Civil Coder a city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus '. incident to, or necessary for, the or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. :~n does not limit the ability of a local (b) A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal for the ~ in determining whether or no~o development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or :d findings that the construction of city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the housing developer in :~rectly attributable to the proposed writing of the manner in which it will comply with this section. The city, count)', or c~ty and county ~.d to the public health, safety, and shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval :~ose improvements or facilities as a of the means of compliance with this section. ~ges or addftions by amendment Asterisks * * * Indicate deletions by amendment § 65915 GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE (c) For the purposes of this chapteL "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 § 65916. Direct financial contrib~ percent of the otherwise maximum allowable resident/al density under the applicable zoning ordi- term of availability nance and land use element of the general plan. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number of housing units which is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the total. The density Notes of Decisions bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. I. In genera] (d) If a developer agrees to construct both 25 percent of the total units for persons and families of local ordinance provision docs not constitute Iow or moderate income and 10 percent of the total units for lower-income households, the developer is entitled to only one density bonus under this section although the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant more than one density bonus. CHAPTEb (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 634, p. --, § I; Stats.1984, c. 1333, p. , § 2.) Section 1984 Legislation. 65919. Definitions. Operative effect of Stats. 1984, c. 1333, see note under Civ. 65919.1. Procedure and comment C. § 51.3. 65919.2. Map of planning review 65919.3. Referring proposed attic § 65915.5. Conversion of apartments to condominium project; eligibility; procedure 65919.4. 'Notice; proposed actions 65919.5. Review and comment by (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to 65919.6. Comments and recomme provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and 65919.7. Modification and referra 65919.8. Review of, comment and families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or 15 65919.9. Comments and recomme percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined 65919.10. Zoning ordinance change in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary 65919.11. Procedural noncomplianc administrative costs incurred by a city, county, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city, 65919.12. Duration of chapter. county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions Chapter ~.,~ wa on the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income Chapter -4.6 households. Co) For purposes of this section, "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25 percent over the C.J.s. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 12, number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for § 65919. Definitions (c) For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other As used in this chapter the folio* monetary, compensat on but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements which the city, (a) "Affected city" means a city w county, or city and county might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. (b) "Affected territory" means ar (d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project may submit to a city, which is the subject on one or more county, or city and county a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of (c) "Proposed action" means a any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, within or to adopt or amend a zoning ordi~ 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will became effective immediately purs~ comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying Section 65858. out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this (d) "Planning review area" means section, lp~ of _a city or court ,ry. A plann whichever of the follo;ving ineludei (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to beyond the territory described in approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. ' (1) The area included within the s (f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this section if the (2) A radius of one mile outside th apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or within the sphere of influence of an other incentives were provided under Section 65915. (3) An area which is agreed upc (Added by Stats.1983, c. 634, p. , § 2.) (Added by Stats.1983, c. 860, p. -- C.J.S. Estates §§ 145, 146. Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.) Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment Asterisks * · * Indicate deletions 18 GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE § 65919 means a density increase of at least 25 § 65916. Direct financial contribution to housing developments through participation in costs; ~!ensity under the applicable zoning ordi- term of availability ~nsity bonus shall not be included when 10 or 25 pereent of the total. Thedensity Note$ of Deei$ians cialcontribution'forpurposeaofthiazeetion, fi4Op~.Atty. :ye or more dwelling units. 1. In general Gen. 370, 4-29-81. The granting of a density bonus or an exemption from a the total units for per~ons and families of local ordinance provision docs not constitute a "direct finan- ar Io~werqneome households, the developer ~ough the ei!3? city and county, or county CHAPTER 4.4. INTERAGENCY REFERRALS I333, p. , § 2.) Section 65919. Definitions. 65919.1. Procedure and comment on referrals. 65919.2. Map of planning review area. 65919.3. Referring proposed actions to affected cities or counties. roject; eligibility; procedure 65919.4. Notice; proposed actions. 65919.5. Review and comment by affected cities or counties. ~s to a condominium project agrees to 65919.6. Comments and recommendations of affected cities or counties; consideration. ed condominium project to persons and 65919.7. Modification and referral back of proposed actions. 65919.8. Review of, comment and recommendations on modification; time. ~93 of the Health and Safety Code, or 15 65919.9. Comments and recommendations of affected cities or counties on modifications. et to lower income households as defined 65919.10. Zoning ordinance changes; referrals; exemption. ~es to pay for the reasonably necessary 65919.11. Procedural noncompliance; validity of proposed actions. :ounty pursuant to this section, the city, 65919.12. Duration of chapter. bonus or (2) prow/de other incentives of ~y may place such reasonable conditions Chapter ~.~ was added bi/Stat~.l~°8~?, c. 860, p. , .~ /2. t equivalent financial value as it finds ssure continued affordability of un/ts to Repeal .' and moderato income or lower income Chapter ~.~ is repealed by ~ ~5P19.1~° on Jan. 1, 1950. Library References , increase in units of 25 percent over the Zoning and Planning ¢~131 et seq. C.I.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 12, 14, 16. : structure or structures proposed for § 65919. Definitions ~uivalent financial value" shall not be -,)vide cash transfer payments or other As used in this chapter the following terms mean: ~'aiver of requirements which the city, (a) "Affected city" means a city within whose planning review area an affected territory is located. ,ns of conversion approval. (b) "Affected territory" means an area of land located in the unineorporatod portion of a county :dominium project may submit to a city, which is the subject on one or more proposed actions. o this section prior to the submittal of (e) "Proposed action" means a proposal to adopt or amend all or part of a general or specific plan county, or city and county shaH, within or to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance, but does not include action taken by an ordinance which ~ writing of the manner in which it will became effective immediately pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 25123 or pursuant to shah estsb]ish procedures for carrying Section 65858. i of the means of compliance with this (d) "Planning review area" means the territory included in a ' * * general plan or in any specific plan of a city or county. A planning review area in the ease of a city shall not extend beyond whichever of the following includes the largest area andr in the case of a eounty~ shall not extend ~t city, county, or city and county to beyond the territory described in paragraph ! (2) or (3}r whichever includes the largest area: (1) The area included within the sphere of influence of the city. !:.er incentives under this section if the (2) A radius of one mile outside the boundary of the city which area shall not include any territory :opment for which a density bonus or within the sphere of influence of another city. (3) An area which is agreed upon and designated by a county and a city within the county. (Added by Stats.19$3, c. 860, p. --, § 2. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 443, § 1.) I So in enrolled bill. an~;es or additions by amendment Asterisks ' ° ' Indicate deletions by amendment City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-87-36; request to reduce exterior sideyard setback from l0 ft. to 5 ft. at 844 Woodlawn Avenue - Leandro Alex Esqueda A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a request to reduce the exterior sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 5 ft. in order to construct an addition to the residence at 844 Woodlawn Avenue in the R-1 zone. The sideyard in question is abutting Sierra Way. 2. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION The subject 7,000 sq. ft., R-1 lot presently contains 2,400 sq. ft. of floor area consisting of a principal residence and detached guest house (garage conversion). The proposal is to add 105 sq. ft. (5' x 21') to the southerly portion of the residence to include a bathroom and two walk-in closets. Approval of the request would reduce the exterior sideyard setback along Sierra Way from l0 ft. to 5 ft. The property is surrounded by single family dwellings to the north and east, a duplex to the west, and a four unit apartment to the south. Both the underlying zone and the Building Line Map calls for setbacks on Sierra Way of 10 ft. for the subject property, and the parcel directly to the west. The building line map requires 20 ft. for the properties directly to the east across Woodlawn Avenue, and 15 ft. for the properties directly to the south. D. ANALYSIS Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The granting of a variance is an administrative act to allow a variation from the strict application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique characteristics by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and developments. The purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel up to parity with other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not to grant any special privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity .... " City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 In the opinion of staff, there is nothing unique about the characteristics of the property or its relationship to adjacent areas which prevents its reasonable use under the existing exterior sideyard restriction. The proposed location for the improvements may represent a convenience for the applicant, but they could easily be accomplished in an alternative manner without encroaching into the 10 ft. sideyard. A site inspection of the property revealed that 6 ft. fencing has been established in the front and exterior sideyard setback areas. The Code limits fencing in these areas to a maximum height of 3.5 ft. llqe matter has been turned over to the Zoning Enforcement Office for correction. For the Commission's information, the following section lists the facts which must be found in order to grant a variance. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual meri ts. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the pu~oses of this chapter or the public interest. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. WPC 4151P/O426P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS m WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING J 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 n~mes 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 orJ,°~wning 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, Boardsw Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes NO__~k. If yes, please indicate person(s) I'Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, I ~ 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.)~~ / Signature of applicantldat-~ A-1lO Print or type name or applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-1; request to establish offices for the San Diego County Department of Social Services at 1261 Third Avenue - John M. Ur~uhart A. BACKGROUND The proposal is to establish the South Bay Regional Office for the Adult and Employment Services Bureau of the San Diego County Department of Social Services (24,000 sq. ft. of the existing "Handyman" building) at 1261 Third Avenue in the C-C-P zone. A public use of this nature may be considered in any zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. An Initial Study, IS-88-3, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on July 31, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-3. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-1, to establish offices for the San Diego County Department of Social Services at 1261 Third Avenue subject to the condition that the parking spaces to the east of the County offices shall be designated for employee parking only. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North C-36 & RU-29 Commercial & Apartments South C-C & R-3 Commercial & Apartments East R-3-M-P Apartments West C-36 Commercial Existing site characteristics The site is a 4.67-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Third Avenue and Kennedy Street. A portion of the property has frontage on Palomar Street as well. The 55,000 sq. ft. Handyman building is located on the northeasterly portion of the site with the main entrance oriented to the west toward Third Avenue. A total of 372 parking spaces are City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 2 located primarily to the west and south of the building and are shared with a 3,000 sq. ft. Burger King located adjacent to Third Avenue and a 8,100 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building located adjacent to Palomar Street. Proposed use The applicant has submitted a two-phase plan for the property. The first phase is the only component subject to a conditional use permit, but the implementation of Phase 2 is dependent upon a shared parking arrangement with the County facility. The Design Review Committee will consider the precise site plan for both phases, including the proposal for shared parking, on August 20. The plan along with the conditional use permit will then be considered by the City Council. The shared parking proposal is discussed below in order to solicit any input the Commission may have on this issue. The first phase is the County offices proposal. This includes interior remodeling and occupancy of the northerly 24,000 sq. ft. of the Handyman building. The exterior of the building and site would remain largely unchanged with the exception that an outdoor display area on the south side of the building would be replaced with an additional bank of parking stalls. Total parking would increase by 46, from 372 to 418 spaces. In Phase 2, the balance of the Handyman building would be remodeled into a three-screen, 900-seat theater and 4,500 sq. ft. of retail/office space. In addition, a new 3,000 sq. ft. freestanding restaurant would be erected at the corner of Third Avenue and Kennedy Street. Since the new restaurant would displace 40 existing parking spaces, total parking would be reduced from 418 to 378 spaces, or a net increase of six spaces over the 372 spaces that currently serve the three existing buildings. County Operations The programs offered by the Adult and Employment Services Bureau are described in detail in the attached letter from the County Department of Social Services. Basically, the programs can be divided into an on-site counseling and training program involving 58 employees and 150-250 clients per day, and off-site support programs involving 88 employees and 50-60 clients per day. The hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Discussions with the County indicate that the number of employees and clients on-site at any one time can vary considerably. Scheduled classes involving a total of 110-190 clients commence between 8-8:30 a.m. and are dismissed between l-l:30 p.m. Afternoon classes involving a total of 40-60 clients commence at 2:00 p.m. and are dismissed at 5:00 p.m. In addition, 50-60 clients associated with the off-site support programs will visit the facility for brief periods throughout the day. Most of the 146 employees are office staff, but 55-60 are case workers which arrive at 8:00 a.m. and depart at 5:00 p.m. but are in-and-out the rest of the day. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS Phase l: County Offices Based upon the nature of their operations, the County offices would be expected to have less of an adverse impact on adjacent residents than the Handyman store or any other typical retail or service commercial use which could occupy the building by right. The vast majority of clients are at the facility to attend scheduled classes. Thus while there may be peak periods of activity with arrivals and departures four times a day, there would not be the constant flow of traffic and customers associated with a commercial use. For the same reason, the facility would have little potential to generate the loitering that many people associate with long client waits at social service agencies. The County assumes that all employees drive their own vehicles, and surveys have indicated that 26% of the clients use personal transportation and the remainder are dropped-off and picked-up or use public transportation. As a result, the County has estimated their need for parking at 170 spaces. As noted earlier, total available parking with Phase 1 would be 418 spaces. Since the Burger King and multi-use commercial building require 110 of these spaces, 308 spaces would be left to serve the County offices, or more than enough to meet the estimated need for 170 spaces. Phase 2: Theaters, Retail & Restaurant All of the new Phase 2 uses are permitted by the underlying C-C-P zone subject only to site plan and architectural approval by the Design Review Committee. The issue is whether or not off-street parking is adequate to accommodate these uses as well as the Phase 1 uses on a shared basis. The hours of operation and parking required for the combination of uses is as follows: Parkin9 Required by Use Phase 1 Parking Required Burger King (8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) 45 spaces Multi-Use (8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) 65 spaces County Offices (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) 170 spaces Sub Total ~spaces Phase 2 Theaters (2:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) 260 spaces Office/Retail (8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) 23 spaces Restaurant (8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.) 45 spaces Sub Total i~21~spaces GRAND TOTAL ~spaces City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 12, 1987 Page 4 The applicant states that the 378 total parking spaces available can be shared by this combination of uses because of non-conflicting hours of operation. The Phase 1 and 2 demand for parking by hours of the day, however, is as follows: Parking Required by Hour Spaces Spaces Hours Required Remaining 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. 348 30 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. 608 -230 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 438 - 60 9:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. 260 118 Consequently, based on current estimates, there is inadequate parking to accommodate the Phase 2 uses even on a shared basis. The restaurant and retail could be accommodated alone, or the theaters could be accommodated alone after 5:00 p.m., but the combination of uses and the overlap in hours of the County offices and theaters places too great a demand on parking. 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 proposed location will provide the Department of Social Services a larger and more centrally located facility from which to serve residents within the South Bay. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The site is located within a commercial district, and the use is proposed to have no more of an adverse impact on adjacent residents than a typical commercial use. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable regulations and conditions will be required before the issuance of building permits for the project. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The General Plan contemplates the establishment of public uses at appropriate locations within any zone district in the City. WPC 4169P/2652P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Third Avenue Business Center/County Offices PROJECT LOCATION: 1261 Third Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: John M. Urquhart P.O. Box 114 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92007 CASE NO: IS-88-3 DATE: July 27, 1987 A. Project Setting The project site has been urbanized for many years as has the surrounding property. There are no natural resources remaining on the project site. Previous 'geological studies have shown that there are no significant geological constraints on nor near the property. In accordance with previous soils reports on the subject property any potential adverse soils conditions have been dealt with during previous construction activities. Because the area has been recently urbanized, adequate drainage facilities are in place. Because of the developed nature of the site, there are no historic nor archaeological resources present. B. Project Description The project consists of a proposal to convert the former Handyman building (32,000 sq. ft. of floor area, 10,000 sq. ft. of covered patio and 25,000 sq. ft. of open sales area) into 24,000 sq. ft. of County office space, 4,300 sq. ft. of retail or office space, a triple-movie theatre and 1,600 sq. ft. of common lobby/pedestrian area. A future freestanding fastfood restaurant is proposed at the northwestern corner of the site. The other existing on-site uses would remain. Because of the hours of operation of the County facilities, "shared" parking is proposed with the movie-theatre. Hours of operation for the theatre would be limited to when adequate parking would be available. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, all elements of the proposed conform to all zoning restrictions and plans for the project site. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Implementation of the project will result in an estimated increase of 3330 ADT increase over the existing operations on the site. Many of these trips would occur during off peak hours due to the movie theatre. But under the most adverse conditions, the increase in ADT would not be significant if appropriate traffic signal fees are paid. city of chula vista planning department ClWOF environmental review section CHU[A VISTA,, -2- 2. The operation of the Handyman facility involved the regular sale of hazardous, domestic substances. Any spill or other accident involving these materials was quickly dealt with. However, there was no regulatory supervision of these activities. Therefore, during construction activities in the areas of the former Handyman patio and open storage, soil testing should be conducted to answer no significant impact on human uses of the area. 3. The existing downstream sewer line is currently experiencing capacity problems to the south of the project. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Standard traffic signal fees will be imposed on the project. 2. The applicant will retain qualified personnel (to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Engineer) to evaluate any potential hazardous soil conditions in the area of the former Handyman patio area and open sales area to determine if there are any hazardous materials present and what remedial measures are necessary to adequately treat the hazards. 3. A study of the downstream sewer line facilities, their ability to accommodate existing flows, project and existing flows and any measures necessary to accommodate the flows shall be prepared. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site does not involve any natural nor manmade resources that could be impacted by the proposed project. The site has been urbanized for some time. The area surrounding the site is urbanized. There are no natural hazards present that could adversely effect the project. 2. Public facilities and infrastructure are present to provide an adequate level of service. This includes the approximately 1885 ADT increase due to the changes in traffic level with the payment of traffic signal feels. With the implementation of mitigation measures to assure adequate sewer services for the project, no substantial impact on public facilities is anticipated. 3. The project conforms to the long range goals of the City of Chula Vista, subject to the issuance of an appropriate conditional use permit, and therefore, does not achieve any short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environment goals. 4. The required said testing for hazardous materials and implementation of any required remedial actions will avoid any significant impact on human beings. -3- 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: Ouinney & Associates 363 Fifth Avenue, Suite 203 San Diego, CA 92101 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code EA-72-9 IS-75-58 IS-77-15 IS-75-20 EA-73-6 IS-77-27 IS-76-6 IS-84-4 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. ENVIROJ~MENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) WPC 4152P ~ city of chula vista planning department CIWOF -' environmental review section CHULAVI A COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 7949 MISSION CENTER COURT, SAN DIEeO, CA 92108 (619) 560-360! June 24, 1987 Mr. Ken Lee Principal Planner City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Lee: It is the intent of the Adult and Employment Services Bureau, Department of Social Services, County of San Diego to locate its South Bay Regional Office within the City of Chula Vista. The current space utilization plan is to include the following programs: a) Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) b) Adult ProtectiveServices c) In-Home Supportive Services d) Nuestros Ninos The GAIN Program, funded under the authority of Chapter 1025 of the California Statutes of 1985 provides a comprehensive Employment, Training, and Education program for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Specific GAIN activities to be conducted at this site include: a) Client registration, enrollment, and orientation; b) Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Services (CASAS) testing; c) Job Search Workshops (Job'Clubs); d) Supervised Job Search; e) Job Placement Services; and f) supportive services (provision of child care and transportation). To accomplish these programmatic activities, fifty-eight (58) GAIN supportive staff will be housed at this site, and will serve approximately 250 clients daily. The In-Home Supportive 'services'(IHSS Pro,ram helps aged and disabled persons remain safely in their own homes. Clients are provided with domestic, meal and personal services. Domestic services include cleaning, washing, shopping and vacuuming. Meal services include food preparation, serving and clean-up of meals. Personal services include assistance Mr. Ken Lee Page 2 June 24, 1987 with dressing, bathing, walking, getting into and out of bed and using the bathroom. Two delivery systems are used to provide these services. The individual provider system uses individuals hired by the clients and the contract system uses homemakers hired by a pri- vate agency under contract to the County. Individual provider payments are handled by a State-wide, State-financed payroll system. The contract agency has its own payroll system. Social workers provide case management services~ they determine eligibility, the recipient~s share of cost, assess the need for care, authorize number of hours and types of service, keep case records, authorize payment to homemaker providers and assist clients in obtaining other services when needed. The In-Home Supportive Services Contract Program consists of a contract with a private agency to provide direct homemaker services through trained and supervised providers. The current contractor is Remedy Home and Health Care. The current contract period is December 1, ~984 through November 30, 1986. An esti- mated 715,000 hours of service are to be provided each contract year. The county staff assigned to this program monitor the contract through random field reviews, bi-weekly claim audits, client surveys, follow-up on client complaints and regular reviews of contractor records. The Adult Protective Services (APS} Program assists adults who are neglected, exploited or who are in circumstances which may endanger their health and safety. Social workers assess need for services, provide short-term problem solving, assist in finding appropriate out-of-home living arrangements and arrange for other services such as financial aid, medical help, trans- portation, and homemaker assistance. The objective of this program is to remove or alleviate abuse and danger as quickly as possible. The social worker then links the adult to other resources, so that any ongoing needs for counseling, supervision and supportive services are met. Nuestros Ninos Nuestros Ninos is a section of the a~optlons program that works exclusively with the Hispanic population. The eight (8) staff assigned to the program provide all adoption services in order to facilitate the permanent placement of Hispanic children into Hispanic homes. This includes working with dependent children, adoptive families and natural parents. Staffing There will be eighty-eight (88) Adult Services staff assigned to the South Bay Services Facility. M~. Ken Lee Page 3 June 24, 1987 Public Visitation It is anticipated that there will be fifty {50) to sixty (60) persons visiting the Adult Services site each day. However, there has been a change in state .legislation that requires independent providers to register and provide positive identi- fication. This may increase the number of visitors to the South Bay facility. Sincerely,~ Allan B. Lipx-~t~,_ ~ Admin. Asst. III ~ ABL/rqr CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION ANO ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BOOIES. The following information must be dtsclbsed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. a. John M. Urquhart (Buyer) d. Edbro Corp. Calif. Handyman 106 Inc. b. Handyman Corp. Liquidatory Trust (Seller) (Lessee) c. Edibrook Corporation (Lessor) List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Same as above 2. If any person Identified pursuant to (1) above ts a corporation or partnership, Tist the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares tn the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. b./c./d. Bernard A. and Julian I. Edison 3. If any q~on identified pursuant to (3) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson 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 comb?~natton acttng~as a unit.' (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary,/~J~ y~ature of ,pp*tc~At/date WPC 0701P John M. Urquhart A-llO Print or type name of applicant